MASTER 
NEGATIVE 
NO. 91-801 74-7 


MICROFILMED 1991 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 


as part of the 
“Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project” 


Funded by the 
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 


Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
Columbia University Library 


COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 


The copyright law of the United States -- Title 17, United 
States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
reproductions of copyrighted material... 


Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 


AUTHOR: 


ALLNATT, CHARLES F. B. 


TITLE: 


CATHEDRA PETRI; THE 
TITLES AND ... 


PLACE: 


LONDON 


DATE: 


18/9 


Master Negative ἢ 


αι- οι, - 1. 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 


Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 


-- 


| 936 
Al6 Allnatt, Charles F B 


Cathedra Petri; the titles and perogatives 
of St.Peter and of his See and successors as described 


by the early Fathers, ecclesiastical writers and councils 
of the church... 2d ed...enl 


London 1879 O 753 + 324 p 


Restrictions on Use: 


XK 
FILM “ὋΝ τ REDUCTION RATIO: 


IMAGE PLACEMENT: 
DATE FILMED: fy INITIALS 


FILMED BY: RESEARCH τὴ LICATIONS, INC_WOODBRIDGE, CT 


nd Image Management 
e, Suite 1100 


ring, Maryland 20910 


Association for information a 
Avenu 


1100 Wayne 
Silver Sp 


301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


2 


1 


25 


22 


28 
32 


150 

ux [13 
με 

| Ee 


10 


1.6 


ΤΩΣ 


MANUFACTURED TO AIIM STANDARDS 


BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 


ALG 
Colunthia University 
in the City of Tew York 


7 
CATHEDRA ΡΕΤΗ͂Ι:. 


THE TITLES AND PREROGATIVES 


St. JPeter, and, of bis See and Successors, 


AS DESCRIBED BY 


THE EARLY FATHERS, ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, AND 
COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 


CHARLES F. B.. ALBRALS 


ἐς Ego interim clamito: Si quis Cathedra Petri jungitur, meus est.” 
Sr. JeRoME (Epist. xvi.) 
‘‘ Fugite, o miseri, execranda Novati 
Schismata, Catholicis reddite vos populis. 
Una fides vigeat, prisco quz condita templo est, 


Quam tenet Cathedra Petri.” 
PrupDENTIus (Hymn. in 5. Hippolyt.) 


Second Edition, Rebised and much Enlarged. 


LONDON: BURNS & OATES, 17 PORTMAN STREET. 
DUBLIN: GILL & SONS, SACKVILLE STREET. 
1879. 


——_— - οὐ ἕὃ͵.» ae “00 τ. το 


CATHEDRA PETERS 


THE TITLES AND PREROGATIVES 


St, JOeter, and of bis Seve and Successors, 


AS DESCRIBED BY 


THE EARLY FATHERS, ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, AND 
COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. 


BY 


CHARLES F. B. ALLNATT. 


“ Ego interim clamito: Si quis Cathedrz Petri jungitur, meus est.” 
Sr. JEROME (Epist. xvi.) 
“ Fugite, o miseri, execranda Novati 
Schismata, Catholicis reddite vos populis. 
Una fides vigeat. prisco quz condita templo est, 
Quam tenet Cathedra Petri.” 
PRuDENTIUS (Hymn. in 5. Hippolyt.) 


Second Evition, Rebised any much Enlarged. 


LONDON: BURNS & OATES, 17 PORTMAN STREET. 
DUBLIN: GILL & SONS, SACKVILLE STREET. 
1879. 


THE object of the following work is to present a short summary or 
abstract of the Patristic evidence regarding the Titles and Prerogatives 
ascribed to St. Peter, and to his See and Successors, in the first ages 
of the Church. 

The original text—Greek or Latin—of the more important passages 
has been appended to each extract. 

In the case of those cited from authors of the first five centuries, 
the translation generally, but not invariably, adopted is the very literal 
and accurate one of the late Dr. Waterworth, to whose valuable works, 
The Faith of Catholics, vols. i, and ii, and The Fathers on St. Peter, 
&c., the reader may be referred for the context of many of the shorter 


extracts given in this work, As regards later authorities, the literal 
translations furnished by the late Dr. Rock, and other English authors, 


have been freely adopted. 
To this new and much enlarged Edition has been prefixed a List of 


the principal authors quoted, with brief Notices of the best editions of 


In the General Council of Ephesus, Α.Ὁ. 431, the Legate Philip 
thus addressed the assembled Fathers :— 


‘TT IS DOUBTFUL TO NONE, YEA RATHER IT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO 
ALL AGES, THAT THE HOLY AND MOST BLESSED PETER, THE PRINCE 
AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES, THE PILLAR OF THE FAITH, THE 
FOUNDATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, RECEIVED THE ΚΕΥΒ OF 
THE KINGDOM FROM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR AND 
REDEEMER OF THE HUMAN RACE; AND TO HIM WAS GIVEN POWER TO 
BIND AND TO LOOSE; WHO EVEN UNTIL NOW, AND ALWAYS, BOTH 
LIVES AND JUDGES IN HIS SUCCESSORS” (Φιλισπὸος πρεσβυτερος καὶ 
πρεσβευτής της αποστολικῆς καθεδρας εἰπεν" Ουδενι αμφιβολον ἐστι, μαλλον 
de mao τοῖς αἰωσιν eyvwcdn, ors ὁ ἅγιος και μακαριωτατος Πέτρος, ὁ sf acyog 
καὶ κεφαλὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων, ὁ κίων TNS πιστεως, ὁ θεμελιος τῆς καθολιχῆς 
εκχλησιας, ἀπὸ TOV κυρίου ἥμων ἽἼησου Χριστου ee FHS AAEIG TNS βασιλειας 


ξ le Ξ e e e 
ἐδεξατο, καὶ auTw dedoras ἐξουσία τοῦ δεόμειν καὶ Ave ἁμαρτιας" ὑστις EWS 


του νὺν καὶ wes ἐν τοῖς αὔτου διαδοχοις καὶ Cn, καὶ δικαζει" Concil. Eph. 


—— 


i, Act. iii, tom. i. Hardouin, Paris, 1715, p. 1477; Labbe, tom. iil. 
so p. 625). 


their works, ἄς, 


~~) 


List of Fathers, Councils, and Chief Ecclesi- 
astical Writers Cited in this. Work. 


Alcuin (FLACcUs ALBINUS), an English monk, who became renowned 
throughout Christendom for his great learning, was born of noble North- 
umbrian parentage about A.D. 735, and brought up from infancy in the 
celebrated school of York (founded by Archbishop Egbert, the disciple 
and friend of Ven. Bede), of which he became the head A.D. 780. He 
was sent to Rome A.D. 781, and shortly afterwards, at the request of the 
Emperor Charlemagne, went to France, where he spent the remainder of 
his life in various literary and scholastic labours, dying at Tours in 804. 
“His services to religion and literature in Europe,” says a Protestant 
writer, “based indeed on the foundation of Bede, were more widely 
extended, and in themselves inestimable” (Dict. of Christ. Biog. and 
Literat. vol. i. p. 74). The best editions of his writings are those of 
Froben (Ratisbon, 1777, 2 vols. fol.), and Migne (Patrol. Lai.’ vols. 
δι. δι.) 


1 The English reader will find much interesting and valuable information 
regarding the lives and writings of the Fathers and early Christian authors in 
Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, London, J. Murray, 
(vol. i., A to D, 1877). 

2 The following are the principal Collections of the works of the early Fathers 
and ecclesiastical writers :— 

1. Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasti- 
corum, &c., Lugdun, 1677, 27 vols. in fol. 

2. Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, Antiquorumque Scriptorum Ecclestasticorum, 
ed. A. Gallandi, Venet. 1765, 14 vols. fol. 

3. Patrologiea Cursus Completus, ed. Migne, Paris, 1843, εἰ seg. (Patrol. Lat. 
217 vols. in 4to; Patrol. Grec. First Series, 104 vols.). 

The best Collections of the Councils are those of— 

1. Labbe and Cossart, Paris, 1674, 17 vols. in fol. 

2. Hardouin, Paris, 1715, 12 vols. in fol. 

3. Mansi, Florence, 1759, 31 vols. in fol. 

The Collected Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, from A.D. 96 to A.D. 440, were 
published by Coustant, Paris, 1721, in fol.; and continued by 7/zel, Lipsiz, 
1867. The most important of them are contained in Rom, Pont. Epist. Selecta 
(vols. xvii. xviii., 1872, of Hurter’s SS. Patrum Opusc. Selecta, (Eniponti, 
1870-77). 

A 


List of Fathers, Councils, etc. 


Ambrose (ST.), Archbishop of Milan from A.D. 374 to 397) was born 
about the year 335, and died in 397. See account of his life and writings 
in Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat. vol. 1. pp. 91-99- The best edition 
of his works is the Benedictine (Paris, 1686 and 1690), republished by 
Migne, Paris, in 4 vols. (Patrolog. Lat. vols. xiv.-xvii.). 

Ambrosiaster is the name given to a writer who was a contemporary 
of St. Ambrose and of Pope Damasus, and whose Commentary on the 
Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul was formerly attributed to St. Aaabrose, and 
printed with his works. St. Augustine, however, reckons ‘Sanctus 
Hilarius” (whether Hilary the Deacon, or Hilary Bishop of Pavia, 1s un- 
certain) as the author. The words cited in p. 107 show that it was 
written during the Pontificate of Pope Damasus (A.D. 366-384), and 
“ other marks, negative and positive, point to the same period” (Dict. of 
Christ. Biog. and Literat. vol. i. p. 87). ; 

Auctor de Rebaptismate. This anonymous author is proved by 
Tillemont, Gallandi, and Dom Ceillier to have written against St. Cyprian 
about the year 254. His treatise is published in Galland (tom. iii.), and 
by Migne (Pair. Lat. vol. iii. p. 1187 5g-). 

“Anthony (ST.), the great founder of monasticism, was born A.D. 250, 
at Coma, on the borders of Upper Egypt, and died A.D. 355, at the age 
of 105. His extant writings are in Galland (tom. iv.). . 

Arnobius Junior was ἃ priest or bishop of Gaul, who flourished 
about A.D. 440. His Commentary on the Psalms is dedicated to Leontius, 
Bishop of Arles, and to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne. Published in 
Bibl. Max. Pat. (tom. viii.). 

Asterius (ST.), Bishop of Amasea, in Pontus, was ἃ contemporary of 
St. Chrysostom, and wrote about A.D. 387. His works were published by 
F. Combefis, in his Auctuarium to the Bibl. Patrum (Paris, 1648), and 
ἃ more complete edition by Migne (Pair. Gre@c. vol. xl.). 

Athanasius (StT.), Archbishop of Alexandria, and the great champion 
of orthodoxy against the Arians, was born A.D. 296, and died A.D. 473. 
See account of his life and writings in Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat. 
vol. i. pp. 179-203. The best edition of his works is the Benedictine, by 
Montfaucon (2 vols. fol. Paris, 1698), republished, with additions, by 
Migne, in 4 vols. (Patr. Grac. vols. XXV.-XXxVill.). | 

Augustine (ST-), the great Bishop of Hippo, In Africa, was born A.D. 
354, and died A.D. 430. The best edition of his voluminous writings 1s 
the Benedictine (11 vols. fol. Paris, 1679-1700); republished by Leclerc 
(Antwerp, 1700-3, 12 vols. fol.), by Gaume (Paris, 1836-39; 22 vols. roy. S¥0), 
Antonelli (Venice, 1858-60, 14 vols. fol.), and Migne (Paris, 16 vols. in 
Patr. Lat. xxxii.-xlvii.). An English translation of his principal works 
has been published by Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh, in 16 vols. 8vo. 

Avitus (ST.), Archbishop of Vienne, in Gaul, was born about A.D. 459, 
and died in 523. His works are published in Galland (tom. x.), and by 


List of Fathers, Counctts, etc. 3 


Migne (Pair. Lat. vol. lix.), with the exception of some discoveries of M. 
Delisle, published in 1866. 

Bachiarius was a monk of the early part of the fifth century. His 
Libellus de Fide Apologeticus was written “to satisfy the Bishop of Rome 
of his orthodoxy,” and “its date is fixed approximately at about the 
middle of the fifth century” (Dict. of Christ. Biog. p. 236): This and 
another treatise are published by Galland (tom. ix.), and by Migne (Pair. 
Lat. vol. xx.). 

Basil the Great (St.), Bishop of Czsarea, in Cappadocia, was born 
A.D. 329, and died A.D. 379. See account of his life and writings in Déc¢. 
of Christ. Biog. vol. i. pp. 283-297. The best edition of his works is the 
Benedictine, by Julian Garnier (Paris, 1721-30, 3 vols. fol.) ; republished 
by Gaume (Paris, 1839, 3 vols.), and Migne (Patr. Grec. vols. xxix.-xxxii.). 

Basil of Seleucia (ST.), Bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, took a leading 
part in the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 448, at which Eutyches was 
condemned. His homilies were first published, in Greek, by Commelin 
(Lugd. Bat. 1596), and also at the end of the works of St. Gregory Thau- 
maturgus (Paris, 1672). 

Bede (THE VENERABLE), the historian of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 
and called by the Protestant Neander “emphatically the teacher of 
England” (Bohn’s Neander, v. 210), was born at Jarrow, in Northumbria, 
A.D. 673, and died A.D. 735. His collected works have been published 
by Dr. Giles, in 12 vols. (London and Oxford, 1843), and by Migne (Par. 
Lat. vols. xc.-xcv.). An English translation of his Ecclesiastical History 
is published in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, and one of his Explanation 
of the Apocalypse, by E. Marshall, Oxford, Parker & Co., 1878. 

Bernard (ST.), the celebrated Abbot of Clairvaux, was born A.D. 
1091, and died A.D. 1153. The Benedictine edition of his works has 
been republished by Gaume (4 vols. roy. 8vo), and by Migne (Pair. Lat. 
vols. clxxxii.-clxxxv.). So great and universal was the esteem in which St. 
Bernard was held, that he became, says Neander, “ the counsellor of 
noblemen, bishops, princes, and popes. . . . His multitudinous labours 
extended abroad from Clairvaux through the whole of Europe. . . . To 
all parts of France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, England, Ireland, 
Denmark, and Sweden, monks must be sent from Clairvaux for the pur- 
pose of founding new monasteries or of reforming old ones ; and thus 
Bernard, at his death in 1153, left behind him one hundred and sixty 
monasteries which had been founded under his influence” (Bohn’s 
Neander, vol. vii. pp. 349-352). 

Boniface (ST. and Pope), succeeded Zosimus, A.D. 418. He was “an 
unswerving supporter of orthodoxy and Augustine in the contest against 
Pelagius ” (Dict. of Christ. Biog. vol. i. p. 328). His epistles are in Galland 
(tom. ix.), after Coustant ; and a selection of them is contained in 
Hurter’s Patrum Opusc. Select. (vol. xviii. 1872.) 


4 List of Fathers, Councils, etc. 


Caius, an ecclesiastical writer of the beginning of the third century, 
fragments of whose writings are preserved by Eusebius and Photius. 

Cassian, 2 monk of Scythia, brought up in the monastery of Beth- 
lehem, and who afterwards became celebrated as a founder of Western 
monachism, was born about the year 350, and died about 440. His writ- 
ings were published in 8261. Max. Pat. (tom. vii.), Migne (vols. xlix., 1.). 

Chrysologus (ST. PETER), Archbishop of Ravenna, A.D. 433 to 454, 
was born at Imola about 405, and died there A.D. 454. Like Chrysostom, 
he obtained the name by which he was usually known by the golden 
brilliancy of his oratory. His extant works are published in Bzd/. Max. 
Pat. (tom. vii.), and by Migne (Pair. Lat. vol. lii.). Numerous works of 
his perished by fire, partly in the siege of Imola by Theodoric in 524 ; 
partly in the conflagration of the Archbishop’s library at Ravenna, 
A.D. 700. 

Chrysostom (ST. JOHN), born A.D. 347, was priest and preacher 
at Antioch from A.D. 381 to 398, and Bishop of Constantinople from A.D. 
398 to 404. The surname of “ golden-mouthed” was given to him on 
account of the extraordinary brilliancy of his eloquence. See account of 
his life and writings in Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Lit. pp. 518-535. The 
best edition of his works is the Benedictine, by Montfaucon (13 vols. fol. 
Paris, 1718), reprinted by Gaume (Paris, 1834-39), and by Migne (16 vols. 
8vo, Paris, 1863, in Patr. Grec. vols. xIvii.-lxiv.), 

Clement of Rome (ST. and POPE), was St. Peter’s third successor in 
the See of Rome, from A.D. 92 to 101. The reader will find an account 
of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, and of the restoration of the lost 
portion of the text (by the MS. discovered in the Library of the Holy 
Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, and published by Bryennios, 
Metropolitan of Serrze, at the end of 1875), in notes to p. 81 seg., of this 
work. The Appendix to Professor Lightfoot’s work on the epistles of 
Clement contains the newly-recovered portion, with introduction, notes, 
and a translation of the whole epistle. 

Clementines (THE), are spurious writings attributed to St. Clement 
of Rome, and now considered to have had an Eastern origin. See Dél- 
linger’s First Age of the Church, 2d ed. p. 302; and Dict. of Christ. 
Biog. and Lit. vol. 1. p. 577. 

Celestine (ST.), the forty-second Bishop of Rome, succeeded Boni- 
face I., A.D. 422, and died in 432. This Pope sent Germanus, Bishop of 
Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, to repress the Pelagian heresy ir 
Britain, and SS. Palladius and Patrick to convert the Irish. Hence St. 
Prosper of Acquitaine said of him, that “ whilst he took pains to keep the 
Roman island (Britain) Catholic, he made the barbarian island (Ireland) 
to become Christian ” (Prosp. Adv. Collator. τι. 41). 

Columbanus (ST.), a celebrated Irish monk, was born in Leinster, 
A.D. 543, and was brought up in the monastery of Bangor, on the coast 
of Down, under St. Comgall, by whom he was sent, A.D. 590, with 


List of Fathers, Councils, etc. 5 


twelve other monks, to preach the Gospel to the tribes dwelling on the 
borders of the Frankish kingdom. He subsequently founded the great 
monasteries of Anegrey, Luxeuil, Fontaines, and Bobbio. See the 
account of his life and labours in Montalembert’s Monks of the West, 
vol. ii. b. vii. His writings are published in Fleming’s Collectanea Sacra 
(Lovan. 1667), and Galland (tom. xii.). 

Cornelius (ST.), succeeded the martyred Pope Fabian A.D. 251, cou- 
rageously accepting his election to the Pontificate, although the tyrannical 
Emperor Decius had declared that ἦέ would rather see a new pretender 
to the Empire than a new Bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Zfzst. lv.). He 
was martyred (“martyrio quoque dignatione Domini honoratus ”— SZ. 
Cyp.) A.D. 252. Several of his epistles are published amongst St. 
Cyprian’s works. Eusebius quotes from his epistle to Fabius, Bishop of 
Antioch (Hist. Eccles. vi. 43). 

Cyprian (ST.), Bishop of Carthage from A.D. 248 to 257, was born 
early in the third century, and became a convert to Christianity A.D. 246. 
He suffered martyrdom A.D. 258. The reader will find an interesting 
account of his life and writings in Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat, vol. 
i. pp. 739-755; and in Mgr. Freppel’s S. Cyfrien, Paris, 1865. The 
best editions of his works are those of Erasmus (Basil, 1520); Paul 
Manutius (Rome, 1563) ; Pamelius (Antw. 1568) ; Rigaltius (Paris, 1648) ; 
Fell (Oxford, 1682) ; Baluzius and Dom. Prud. Maranus (the celebrated 
Benedictine edit., Paris, 1726; republished by Migne, Patr. Lat. vols. 
iii. iv.); Goldhorn (2. Of. Genuina, Lipsiz, 1838); and J. Hartel 
(1868-71). An English translation of Cyprian’s works has been published 
in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and another by Messrs. Clark of 
Edinburgh, in their Amze-lVicene Christian Library. 

Cyril of Alexandria (ST.), was Archbishop of Alexandria, and. the 
great opponent of the Nestorian heresy. He succeeded Theophilus A.D. 
412, and died A.D. 444. He presided, as Pope Ceelestine’s Legate, over 
the General Council of Ephesus. The best edition of his works is that 
of Aubert (6 vols. Paris, 1658), republished by Migne (Patrol. Gre@c. 
vols. lxviii.-lxxvii.). 

Cyril of Jerusalem (ST.), was born in Jerusalem about A.D. 315. 
He succeeded Maximus as Bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 350. His eighteen 
Catechetical Lectures, addressed to Catechumens, and five Mystagogical 
Lectures, addressed to the newly baptized, were composed about A.D. 
347, while he was still a priest. See Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat. 
vol. i. p. 762. The best editions of his works are those of Milles (Oxford, 
1703), and the Benedictine (Paris, 1720, and Venice, 1761), republished 
by Migne (Patrol. Grec. vol. XXXiii. ). 

Damasus (ST. and POPE), succeeded Liberius A.D. 366, after violent 
opposition, leading to bloodshed, on the part of the Arian faction and the 
ante-Pope Ursicinus. “ Damasus,” says a Protestant writer, “‘ used his 
success well, and the chair of Peter... was never more respected nor 


6 List of Fathers, Councils, ete. 


more vigorous than during his bishopric. He appears as ἃ principal de- 
fender of orthodoxy against Arian and other heretics” (Dict. of Chris. Biog. 
vol. i. p. 783). “ His correspondence with Jerome, his attached friend 
and secretary, begins A.D. 376, and closes only with his death, A.D. 384.” 

Ephrem Syrus (ST-.), deacon or priest of the Church of Edessa, was 
born about A.D. 306, at Nisibis, in Mesopotamia, and died after A.D. 379. 
His extant works, in Syriac and Greek (the latter probably translated in 
his time), fill six vols. folio, and were edited by J. Assemani, at Rome, in 
1732 and 1747. A Greek edition was published at Oxford in 1709 by 
Mr. Edward Thwaites; a Latin translation of all his works (Syriac and 
Greek) at Venice, in 1775. 

Epiphanius (ST-), Archbishop of Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, 
was born about A.D. 310, in Palestine, and died A.D. 403. His great 
work, entitled Panarium, or, Box of Antidotes against all Heresteés, 
appeared in 374. The best editions of his complete works are those 
of Petavius (2 vols. fol. Colon. 1622); Dindorf (5 vols. 8vo, Lipsiz, 
1859-63) ; Migne (Patrol. Grec. vols. xli. xlii.). 

Eusebius (PAMPHILUS), Bishop of Czesarea, and commonly called 
“The Father of Ecclesiastical History,” was born between A.D. 260 and 
270. He died about 340. In his Ecclesiastical History many valuable 
extracts from the works of earlier writers (since lost) are preserved. His 
complete works are published by Migne in six vols. (Par. Gr@¢. x1Xx.- 
xxiv.). An English translation (not always perfectly accurate) of his 
Ecclesiastical History is published in Bohn’s 7heological Library. 

Eulogius was Patriarch of Alexandria in 581, and died in 608. 

Firmilian, Bishop of Czsarea, in Cappadocia, was a contemporary of 
St. Cyprian, and died A.D. 269. His Epistle to St. Cyprian is published 
with that Father's works. See Mgr. Freppel’s St. Cyprien, p. 427 56. 

Fortunatus was a Christian poet, and Bishop of Poictiers in the 
sixth century. He died in 603. Works published by Brower (Mogunt. 
1603; Migne (Pat. Laz. vol. Ixxxviii.). 

Gelasius I. (ST. and POPE), occupied the chair of Peter from A.D. 492 
to 496. Eighteen of his Decretal Epistles are published in Labbe (πεῖ. 
t. iv.) ; Migne (Paér. Laz. vol. lix.) ; and Thiel (Zfis¢. Rom. Pont. tom. i. 
1867). 

Gregory of Nazianzum (ST.), a renowned champion of the Catholic 
faith against the Arians, was born about A.D. 329. He became Metro- 
politan of Caesarea about A.D. 370, and Bishop of Constantinople in 380, 
but soon resigned that see and retired to his native country, where he 
died A.D. 389. The best edition of his works is that of the Benedictines 
and A. B. Caillau (2 vols. fol. Paris, 1778-1849), republished by Migne 
(Pair. Grec. vols. XXXV.-XXXViil.). 

Gregory of Nyssa (ST.), was the younger brother of Basil the Great, 
and became Bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, A.D. 371 ; but was deposed 
and banished by the Arians in 375. He acted a prominent part at the 


List of Fathers, Councils, ete. 7 


General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, and died A.D. 395. The 
best edition of his works is that of Morell, republished by Migne (Pair. 
Grec. vols. xliv.-xlvi.). 

Gregory the Great (ST. and POPE), was born about A.D. 520, and 
died in 604. To the mission of Augustine and his monks by this Pope 
England owes its conversion to Christianity. The best edition of his 
works is the Benedictine (Paris, 1705, 4 vols. fol. and Venice, 1768-76, 
4 vols.), republished by Migne (Pair. Lat. vols. Ixxv.-Ixxix.). 

Hilary of Poictiers (ST.), was born about A.D. 320, became Bishop 
of Poictiers in 355, and was banished the next year by the Emperor 
Constantius for his zealous defence of Athanasius against Saturninus. 
He returned to his see in 359, and died in 366. In 1852 he was declared 
“ Doctor of the Universal Church” by Pope Pius IX. The best edition 
of his works is the Benedictine (Coustant, Paris, 1693), enlarged by 
Maffei in 1730 (2 vols. fol.), and Migne (Pair. Lat. vols. ix. x.). 

Hormisdas (POPE), was elected in the year 514. Atthe request of the 
Emperor Justin, and John, Patriarch of Constantinople, this Pope sent a 
deputation to bring about the re-union of the Monophysites with the 
Church. This was to be effected by the proposal of a profession of faith 
—commonly called the Formula of Pope Hormisdas—to be signed by 
the Eastern Bishops. It was accepted and signed by all of them (includ- 
ing those who had joined the Acacian schism), as also by the Emperor 
Justinian, and by the Patriarchs of Constantinople—Epiphanius, John, 
and Mennas. It was also signed by every Bishop before taking his seat 
in the eighth General Council, held A.D. 869. 

Hippolytus (ST-.), ἃ disciple of St. Irenzeus, came to Rome during 
the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, who, after a reign of eighteen years, was 
succeeded, A.D. 218, by Callistus. In combating the heretics of his time 
(the Sabellians and Noetians, who maintained the Patripassian doctrine), 
Hippolytus himself fell into an opposite extreme of error (Subordina- 
tionism), and he also opposed the mitigated system of penance which had 
been approved by Pope Zephyrinus. When Callistus, to whom he showed 
a strong personal enmity, was elected Pope, Hippolytus, who had become 
Bishop of Pontus, set himself to oppose him, and “‘ declaring that a heretic 
could not be Pope, and that those who adhered to him were not the 
faithful, but formed ‘a school’? and not the Church, he came to the 
conclusion that he himself was Pope, and that such as remained to him 
of his flock in the Tiburtine Way were the true Church. Thus he speaks 
of himself in stately plural as ‘the successors of the Apostles, the par- 
takers of the same grace, supreme priesthood, and doctorship, and the 
guardians of the Church’” (Month, Feb. 1878). The small schism 
thus caused continued for some years ; but before his martyrdom, which 
probably occurred at the same time as that of Pope Pontian, A.D. 235, 
Hippolytus was reconciled to the Holy See (Prudent., Hymn. in S. 
Hippol.). See Déllinger’s Hippol. and Callist., Eng. trans. 1876, and 


8 List of Fathers, Counctlts, etc. 


The Lives of SS. Callist. and Hippol.in Month of February and March 
1878. His collected works are published in Galland (tom. ii.) and Migne 
(Patr. Grec. vol. x.). He is now generally considered to have been the 
author of the Philosophumena, or Confutation of all Heresies, in ten 
books, which the first editor, Miller (Oxford, 1851), attributed to Origen. 
His Chronicle, which appeared in the year 235, contained a catalogue of 
the early Bishops of Rome, counting St. Peter as the first ; but the por- 
tion containing it was supposed to be lost until restored by Mommsen, 
who proved “ that the earlier part of the celebrated Liberian Catalogue is 
derived from the list of Roman Bishops given by St. Hippolytus” (2 2εΐ. 
of Christ. Biog. and Lit. vol. i. p. 506, 7, 555, 7)- 

Ignatius (ST.), surnamed Theophorus, was a disciple of St. John, and 
became the second successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch (Origen, 
Hom. vi. ix Lucam; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 36). He suffered mar- 
tyrdom under the Emperor Trajan, by whose orders he was conveyed by 
soldiers to Rome, and there cast to the wild beasts in the Amphitheatre. 
During his journey he was met by delegates from several of the Christian 
Churches, and it was under these circumstances that he wrote, from 
Smyrna, his Epistles to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, 
and the Romans; from Troas, those to the Philadelphians, the Smyr- 
noeans, and to their Bishop Polycarp (Euseb. Aizs¢. Ecc. iii. 36). His 
seven epistles (the shorter Greek recension) are referred to by Polycarp, 
Irenzeus, Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and other 
early writers; and the Syriac epitome of three of them, published by 
Cureton, is considered by the best critics (such as Hefele, Denzinger, and 
Meesinger—Catholics ; Petermann, Ullhorn, Merx, Dr. Jacobson and 
Professor Hussey of Oxford, and Dr. Mill and Professor Blunt of Cam- 
bridge—Protestants) to have rather confirmed the genuineness of the 
Greek text than otherwise. See also Quarterly Review, No. 175, and 
Dublin Review, June 1858. 

Innocent I. (St. and POPE), succeeded Anastasius I. in the year 402, 
and died in 417. His epistles are published in Galland (tom. viii.), after 
Coustant. 

Irenzus (ST.), Bishop of Lyons, was born in Asia Minor, A.D. 135-140. 
He himself speaks in his Epistle to Florinus (af. Eused. v. 20) of his 
former intimate acquaintance with St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, 
and of the opportunities he had availed himself of in being thoroughly 
instructed by him in the doctrine and traditions of the Apostles. During 
the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Irenzeus came to Gaul, and he 
succeeded Pothinus, the martyred Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 178. He him- 
self suffered martyrdom with many others A.D, 202, during the persecu- 
tion under Septimus Severus. His great work Against the Heresies, in 
five books, has been preserved in a very-ancient and barbarously literal 
Latin version. Its amtiguity is shown by the fact that it was used by 
Tertullian, as Massuet has proved ; and its extreme fidelity, by comparing 


List of Fathers, Councils, ete. 9 


it with the portions of the Greek text of the first book (c. 1-21) that have 
been preserved, as well as with the fragments quoted by St. Hippolytus, 
Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. John Damascene, and others. ‘The best 
editions of his works are those of Massuet (Benedictine, Paris, 1712, 
and Venice, 1734), and Stieren (Lipsiz, 1853, 2 vols. 8vo), which have 
been reprinted by Migne, with new critical notes, and the three valuable 
Dissertations of Massuet regarding the life, writings, and doctrine of St. 
Irenzeus (Patr. Grec. vol. vii.). For a full elucidation of the celebrated 
passage in lib. iii. c. 3, the reader must be referred to Schneemann’s Siz. 
Irenai, De Eccles. Rom. Principatu Test. Commentat. et Defensum, 
Friburg, 1870; or to Mgr. Freppel’s Sz. Trénée et la Primauté du Pape, 
1870; reprinted from his larger work, Sz. Jrénée, Paris, 1861. 

James of Nisibis (ST.), Bishop of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia, was illus- 
trious in the annals of the Church of Syria, which venerated him as one 
οὔ μεσ greatest doctors, He was present at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. 
His sermons, which were commended by St. Athanasius (Epis¢. Encly. 
ad Episc. Egypt. et Lyb.), and of which Gennadius gives the titles, were 
published entire at Rome in 1766, with a Latin translation from the 
Armenian, by Nicholas Antonelli. 

Jerome (ST.), a profound Biblical scholar, and the author of the 
translation of the whole Bible known as the Latin Vulgate, was born at 
Stridon, in Dalmatia, about A.D. 340. His youth was passed at Rome, 
where he studied almost every branch of learning, especially rhetoric, 
Hebrew, and theology. After leading for four years a solitary life in the 
deserts of Syria, he went to Antioch, and was ordained priest, A.D, 377- 
In 381 he went to Constantinople, and from thence passed to Rome, 
where he became the friend and secretary of Pope Damasus. After the 
death of Damasus, Jerome quitted Rome (385) and retired to the Holy 
Land, where he superintended several monasteries, until his death at 
Bethlehem in 420. Besides his translation of the Scriptures (of which, 
according to Hain, in his Refertorium Bibliographicum, ninety-eight dis- 
tinct editions were printed between the year 1460 and the close of the 
fifteenth century), his entire works were published by Erasmus (Basil, 
ap. Froben, 1516 42 seg., in 9 vols. fol.), and at Rome (9 vols. fl.) in 
1565. The Benedictine edition (Pouget and Martianay) appeared in 
1693-1706, in 5 vols. fol. The best edition was that of Vallarsius 
(Verona, 1734, 12 vols. fol.). Migne’s edition is reprinted. from the two 
last named, in 9 vols. roy. 8vo (Paér. Laz, vols. ΧΧΙΪ. -ΧΧΧ.). 

Julius (POPE and ST.), succeeded Marcus A.D. 337, and died in 352. 
His Epistle to the Eusebians is published with others by Coustant, 
Galland, and Migne (Paz. Laz. vol. viii.). 

Juvencus, a Christian poet of the fourth century, translated portions 
of the Scriptures into Latin verse; but only his Book on Genesis and 
Gospel History (4 books) are extant. Galland (tom. iv.), Migne (Paér. Lat. 
ν. xix.) 


10 List of Fathers, Councits, etc. 


Leo the Great (ST. and PoPE), succeeded Sixtus III., A.D. 440, and 
died in 461. It was this great Pontiff who, by his confidence in God 
and noble and courageous conduct, saved Rome from being pillaged by 
the Huns under “the Scourge of God,” Attila, A.D. 452; and again, in 
455, he saved the city from destruction by the awe which he inspired in 
the fierce Gesneric, King of the Vandals. “The Pontificate of Leo the 
Great,” says the Protestant Milman, “is one of the epochs of Latin, or 
rather of universal Christianity. Christendom, wherever mindful of its 
Divine origin, and of its proper humanising and hallowing influence, 
might turn away in shame from the melancholy and disgraceful (religious) 
contests in the East. On the throne of Rome alone, of all the greater 
sees, did religion maintain tts majesty, its sanctity, its piety; and if it 
demanded undue deference, the world would not be rigidly inclined to 
question pretensions supported as well by such conscious power as by 
such singular and unimpeachable virtue; and by such inestimable 
benefits conferred on Rome, on the empire, on civilisation” (//zs¢. of 
Latin Christ. book ii. ch. 4). It was this Pope who summoned, and, by 
his Legates, presided over the General Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 ; 
and it was his famous Epistle to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
that elicited from the assembled prelates the exclamation, “ Peter hath 
spoken by the mouth of Leo” The best edition of his works is that of the 
brothers Ballerini (1753, in 3 vols. fol.). They are also published by 
Migne (Par. Laz. vols. liv.-lvi.); and his Epistole Selecte and Sermones 
Selecti by Hurter (Pair. Opuse. Select. CEniponti, 1868-74, vols. xiv., 
XXV., XXVi.). 

Macarius of Egypt (ST.), was born A.D. 300, and in 330 entered on a 
life of rigid monasticism, dying in 399. Works published by Galland 
(tom. viii.), and Migne (Par. Gr. vol. xxxiv.). 

Maximus of Turin (ST.), was celebrated in the fifth century as a 
Christian orator, and was called by Gennadius, ‘ Vir divinis Scripturis 
satis intentus, et ad docendum ex tempore plebem sufficiens’ (De 
Script. Eccl. c. 40). He acted a prominent part in the Council of Milan, 
A.D. 451, and at the Council of Rome, A.D. 465. The best edition of his 
works is that of P. Brunnus (Rome, 1784), republished by Migne (Patr. 
Lat. vol. lvii.). 

Nilus (ST.), flourished under the Emperors Arcadius and Theodosius, 
and died about A.D. 450. He had for his master the great St. Chry- 
sostom. His letters were published by Allatius (Rome, 1668), and his 
treatises by Suarez (Rome, 167 3)- 

Optatus (ST.), Bishop of Milevis in Africa, wrote his treatise De 
Schism. Donat. cont. Parmenian. about the year 370, and lived to see the 
accession of Pope Siricius (whose name he added to the list of Popes in 
lib. ii. c. 3) in 384. St. Jerome speaks of the treatise as containing szx 
books (De Vir. Jilust. c. 121); but the most ancient MSS. and editions 
contain a seventh, which was originally, it is supposed, regarded as an 


List of Fathers, Councils, ete. II 


appendix, or added by the author when he revised his work (Dupin, 
Pref, ad Op. ὃ 2; Fessler, Jnst. Patr. vol. ii. § 255). St. Augustine 
(De Doct. Christ. ii. 40; Cont. Epist. Parmenian, \ib. i. c. 3) reckons 
Optatus amongst the most renowned writers of the Church. The earlier 
editions of his treatise were very inaccurate, according to Dupin, who, 
after collating many MSS., published his highly esteemed edition at 
Paris (in 1700), Amstelod (1701), and Antwerp (1702). This edition has 
been republished with select notes by Oberther (Wincel. 1790, 2 vols.), 
Galland (tom. v.), Migne (P. Laz. v. xi.), Hurter (Patr. Opuse. vol. x. 1870). 

Origen, was born at Alexandria about A.D. 185. His instructors in 
theology were Pantzenus and Clement of Alexandria; and in 203 he 
became head of the Catechetical School in that city. During the Ponti- 
βοαῖς of Zephyrinus, about A.D. 211; Origen went to Rome, evgapevos τὴν 
apxavorarny Ῥωμαιων εκκλησιαν dew (Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 14); but, return- 
ing to Alexandria, at the desire of his bishop, Demetrius, he there wrote 
many of his great works on the Scriptures. He was subsequently sent 
by Demetrius into Achaia, and during his stay at Czesarea in Palestine, 
he was ordained priest, A.D. 228. He returned to Alexandria in 230, and 
was treated with severity by his Bishop on account of the irregularity of 
his ordination, and some heretical doctrines attributed to him, for which 
also he was condemned in two Synods. He died at Tyre in 254. The 
best edition of his works is the Benedictine (De la Rue, Paris, 1743, 4 
vols. fol.), republished by Oberthur (Co//. PP. Grec. vols, vii.-xxi.), and 
Migne (vols. xi.-xvii.). 

Pacian (ST.), was Bishop of Barcelona from A.D. 370 to 391. His 
works are in Galland (tom. v.), and Migne (Paér. Laz. vol. xi.). 

Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, wrote about the year 418. Galland. 
(tom. ix.). 

Paulus Orosius, was a priest of Bracara in Spain, and a disciple of 
SS. Jerome and Augustine. Writings in Galland (tom. ix.), and Migne 
(vol. xxxi.). 

Proclus (ST.), a disciple of St. Chrysostom, became Patriarch of 
Constantinople in A.D. 434, and was a zealous opponent of Nestorianism. 
He died in 447. His letters and homilies were published by Riccardi 
(Rome, 1630), Combefis (Auciuar. tom. i.), Galland (tom. xix.), Migne 
(Patr. Grec. vol. lxv.). 

Prosper of Acquitaine (ST.), a zealous disciple of St. Augustine, 
and opponent of the Pelagian heresy, flourished about A.D. 428. He 
died in 455. The best edition of his works is that of Paris (fol. 1671 and 
1711), republished by Mangeant (Venice, 1744 and 1782), and Migne 
(Patr. Lat. vol, li.). 

Prudentius, a Christian poet, was born at Saragossa, in Spain, A.D. 
348, and died about A.D. 413. The latest editions of his poems are those 
of Dressel (Lipsize, 1860), and Migne (Patr. Lat. vols. lix. 1x.). 


12 List of Fathers, Councis, etc. 


Simplicius (ST. and POPE), sat from A.D. 468 to 483. His epistles are 
in Labbe (Comci/. tom, iv.), &c. 

Siricius (ST. and Pope), succeeded Damasus in A.D. 384, and died in 
398. Epistles in Galland (tom. vii.), after Coustant. 

Socrates, the Greek ecclesiastical historian, was born in Constanti- 
nople about the year 380. His history, which is for the most part a 
continuation of Eusebius, ends with the year 439. 

Sozomen, also a Greek ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, was 
a native of Palestine, from whence he passed to Constantinople. He 
died about 450. His history, with that of Socrates, was published by 
Valesius (Paris, 1686), Reading (Cambridge, 1720), and Migne (Pair. 
Grec. vol. Ixii.); and English translations of both are published in 
Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library. 

Tertullian, the son of a proconsular centurion, was born at Carthage 
about A.D. 150, and brought up for the profession of a Roman advocate. 
He embraced Christianity A.D. 185, was ordained priest in 192, became a 
Montanist in 199, and died about 220. His works, many of which are 
extant, are highly esteemed, since even those which were written after he 
had fallen into heresy bear important testimony regarding the faith, 
practice, and discipline of the Church in his time. Of his style, which is 
extremely terse and vigorous, St. Vincent of Lerins said: “Who can 
express the praises which he deserves, . . . whose so many words almost 
are so many sentences, whose so many senses sO many victories. This 
knew Marcion, Apelles, Praxeas, and Hermogenes, Jews, Gentiles, 
Gnostics, and many others, whose blasphemous opinions he hath over- 
thrown with his many and great volumes, as it had been with thunder- 
bolts” (Commonit. c. 18.) His treatise on Prescription against Heretics 
was written whilst he was a Catholic. His works were published by 
Erasmus (1520), Pamelius (1568), Rigalt (1648), Fell (Oxford, 1682), and 
others. The best edition is the Benedictine (Maran, Paris, 1726), and 
Migne’s (Paér. Lat. vols. iv. v.). English translations have been pub- 
lished in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in Clarke’s Ante-Nicene 
Christian Library. 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Palestine, was born at Antioch about 
A.D. 393, and died about 458. He was accused of sympathising with the 
heretical Patriarch Nestorius, but justified himself before the Council of 
Chalcedon by anathematising Nestorius and his doctrines. His works 
were published by Sirmond (Paris, 1642); Garnier (1684); Schulze 
(Halle, 1769, in 8vo, 5 vols.) ; Migne (Pair. Grec. vols. 1xxx.-lxxxiv.). 

Theodore (THE STUDITE), became Abbot of the famous monastery 
in Constantinople called the Studion, A.D. 798, The Protestant Neander 
highly commends “ the inflexibility and steadfastness of his zeal under 
persecutions and sufferings in maintaining the sacred laws ” against the 
tyrannical Emperors Constantine Copronymus and Nicephorus (Nean- 


List of Fathers, Councils, etc. 13 


der’s Church Hist. Bohn’s ed. vi. 269-278). His writings were published 
by Sirmond, and by Migne (Patr. Grec. vol. XCix.). 

Vincent of Lerins (ST.), was, according to Gennadius, “by birth a 
Gaul, a presbyter in a monastery in the island of Lerins, a man learned 
in the Holy Scriptures, and well instructed in the knowledge of the 
doctrines of the Church.” His celebrated Commonitorium against 
heretics appeared in the year 434. 

Victor, Bishop of Vite, in Africa, who was exiled by the Arian king, 
Hunneric, wrote about A.D. 487 his History of the Vandalic Persecution, 
in five books, which is one of the principal sources of the history of the 
Vandals (Bibl. Max. Pat. tom. viii.) ; Migne (Pat. Laz. vol. Ixviii.). 

Zeno (ST.), an African by birth, became eighth Bishop of Verona in 
A.D. 362. He died about 383. The best edition of his works is that of 
the brothers Ballerini (Verona, 1739), republished by Galland (tom. v.) and 
Migne (Paz. Laz. vol. xi.). 

Zosimus (ST. and POPE), succeeded Innocent I. in 417, and died in 
418. His epistles are published by Galland (tom. ix.) after Coustant. 


Africa, Three Councils of. The Epistle of the African Bishops was 
addressed to Pope Theodore, and read in the Lateran Synod under his 
successor, Martin I., A.D. 649. 

Arles, Council of, held A.D. 314. All the provinces of the Roman 
Empire were represented. 

Carthage and Milevis, Councils of, held A.D. 416. See Hefeles’ 
Hist. of Church Councils, Eng. trans., vol. ii. p. 455 56. 

Chalcedon, the (FOURTH CECUMENICAL) Council of, was held A.D. 
451, under the four Legates of Pope Leo I. About 600 Bishops were 
present, almost all of the Eastern Church. On the 28th canon of this 
Council (passed by a comparatively small number of Bishops, in the 
absence of the Papal Legates), see "026 to p. 77. 

Constantinople, the First Council of (SECOND CECUMENICAL), held 
A.D. 381, was composed of 150 Eastern Bishops, and its Creed was con- 
firmed by Pope Damasus (Ὁ. Hefele’s Church Councils, vol. ii. p. 371)- 

Constantinople, the Third Council of (SIXTH CECUMENICAL), com- 
posed of 170 Eastern Bishops, was held A.D. 680, and its decisions were 
confirmed by the Legates of Pope Agatho. In the letter written by the 
Synod to the Pope, he is called The Head of the Church, and his chair, 
The. First See of the Gicumenical Church (Hardouin, tom. iii. p. 1632). 

Ephesus, the (THIRD CECUMENICAL) Council of, was held A.D. 431, 
and presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria (having plenary power from 
Pope Ccelestine), and the Papal Legates. About 200 Bishops were 


present. 
Nicza, the Second Council of (SEVENTH CECUMENICAL), was held 


14 List of Fathers, Counczls, etc. 


A.D. 787, and attended by more than 300 Bishops. It was presided over 
by the Legates of Pope Hadrian I., and its decrees were confirmed by 
that Pontiff, who afterwards wrote to Charlemagne :—* Synodum istam 
secundum nostram ordinationem fecerunt ;” and again, “ Et ideo ipsam 
suscepimus Synodum” (Hard. vol. iv. p. 818, 9). 

Sardica, the Council of, was assembled A.D. 343, by the Emperors 
Constans and Constantius, at the desire of Pope Julius. About 97 ortho- 
dox Bishops were present; and St. Athanasius states that its canons 
were signed or agreed to by “ more than 300 Bishops.” He also calls it 
peyahn συνοδος (Afol. Cont. Ar. i.), and Sulpicius Severus says that it was 
“ex toto orbe convocata” (7152. lib. ii.). Pope Nicholas I. said of its 
canons, “ Omnis Ecclesia recipit eos” (Hard. v. pp. 135, 814). John 
Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 578, admitted them into 
his collection of Ecclesiastical Laws. Photius inserted them in his 
Nomocanon, and many Greeks have appealed to them. In accordance 
with the 3d, 4th, and 5th canons, in which the right of the Pope to receive 
appeals from all parts was distinctly acknowledged, St. Chrysostom ap- 
pealed to Pope Innocent, Theodoret to Pope Leo I., and Pope Ccelestine 
condemned Nestorius, and annulled his acts and judgments, &c. &c. 
See the History and Canons of this Council in Hefeles’ Aizst. of Ch. 
Coun. vol. ii. pp. 68-196. 


The best modern history of the Church Councils is that of Bishop 
HEFELE (in German, 7 vols. Friburg, 1856-73 ; in French, 10 vols. Paris, 
1869-74). The first eight books of this work (down to the year 431) have 
been published in an English version by Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh, 
in 2 vols, 8vo. 

A short account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with 
copious citations from their Acts, and from the Epistles of Pope Cceles- 
tine and of Pope Leo the Great, will be found in Fr. Gallwey’s Lectures 
on Ritualism, 1878: Lect. vii., “ The Faith of St. Leo the Great;” Lect. 


viii., “ The Faith of the Council of Ephesus ;” to which the reader will 
do well to refer. 


TITLES AND PREROGATIVES OF 
ST. PETER, ac 


I, 


THE following is a brief synopsis of the titles and preroga- 
tives given or ascribed to St. Peter by the early Fathers and 


Councils, &c. : : 
1, The Rock—The Most 5 olid Rock—The Great Foundation 


of the Church, δ. (in reference to Matt. xvi. 18). 


Tertullian, A.D. 195 :— “ Was anything hidden from 
PETER, WHO IS CALLED THE ROCK WHEREON THE CHURCH 
WAS TO BE BUILT?” (Latuit aliquid Petrum, edificandz 
ecclesie petram dictum? De Prescript. Heret. c. 22). “I 
find, by the mention of his mother-in-law, Peter the only one 

; . © 
(of the Apostles) married. I presume him a monogamist, by 
THE CHURCH, WHICH, BUILT UPON HIM, was about to confer 
every grade of her order on monogamists” (per ecclesiam, 
que super illum zdificata, &c. De Monogam.c. 8. Comp. 
De Pudicitid, c. 21 ;* Adv. Mare. lib. ιν. ¢. 13). 

Origen, A.D. 216:—“See what is said by the Lord to 
THAT GREAT FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH AND MOST 
SOLID ROCK upon which Christ founded the Church—‘O 

1 The treatise De Puditicid was written by Tertullian after he had fallen into 
the Montanist heresy, and his tone throughout is bitterly hostile to the Pope 
(Zephyrinus), and to the Catholic Church which he had abandoned. ᾿ He charges 
the former, to use the words of a Protestant writer (COLLETTE, On the Supremacy, 
Ρ. 97), with ‘‘ usurping”’ a supreme power and authority in the Church, “ on the 
plea of being St. Peter's successor,” which very charge shows that the Pope claimed 
succession from St. Peter, and supremacy, in virtue of that succession, over the 
Church. The Protestant Bishop Kaye observes, in his work on the writings of 
Tertullian, that their extreme value arises in a great measure from his errors ; for, 
on becoming a Montanist, his attempt to expose the practice and discipline (and 


belief) of the Church /e//s us what that practice and discipline (and Jelief) were, 
an account of which, but for his secession from the Church, his works would not 


16 St. Peter the Rock. 


thou of little faith! why didst thou doubt δ᾽" (Vide magno 
illi ecclesiz fundamento, et petra solidissime, super quam 
Christus fundavit ecclesiam, quid dicatur a Domino, &c. ln 
Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii. p. 145, ed. De la Rue, Migne). 
“Peter, UPON WHOM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS BUILT” 
(Πετρος δε, ef @ οικοδομειται ἡ Χριστου εκκλησια. In Foann. 
tom. iv. p. 96; et ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 25). 
“Peter, AGAINST WHOM THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT 
PREVAIL” (De Principiis, lib. iii. c. 2,n. 5. Comp. Select. in 
Ps. 38, Hom. ii. 10, tom. ii, p. 695; Ju Matt. t. xiv. n. 5, tom. 
iii. p. 620; Schol. in Luc. c. ix. tom. vii. p. 341). “ Neither 
against ‘THE ROCK’ upon which Christ builds His Church, 
nor against the Church, shall the gates of hell prevail” (oure 


yap τῆς TeTpas, ep 7S ὁ Χριστος οἰκοδομει την ἐκκλησίαν, OUTE 


της εκκλησιας, πυλαι αδου κατισχυσουσιν. Tom. iii. Com. in 
Matt. t. xii. n. 11). “ UPON HIM (Peter), AS ON THE EARTH, 
THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED” (cum super ipsum, velut super 
terram, fundaretur ecclesia. Ju Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, 
tom. iv. p. 568). 

The Clementines, A.D. 230:—“ Simon, who, on account 
of the true faith and the most secure foundation of his doc- 
trine, was SET APART TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF THE 
CHURCH; and who, on this very account, had his name, by 
the mouth of Jesus, which deceives not, changed into Peter” 
(Σίμων, ὁ δια την αληθη πίστιν, Kat τὴν ασφαλεστατην ἀυτου 
της διδασκαλίας υποθεσιν, της ἐκκλησίας θεμέλιος, K.T.r. Epist. 
Clement. ad Facob. Ὁ. OL, Galland, tom. ii.), “SOLID ROCK 
AND FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH” (Hom. xvii. ἢ. 19, p. 
758). 

St. Hippolytus, A.D. 225 :—“Peter,... THE ROCK OF 


have supplied.” Tertullian’s objections, therefore, to the Pope’s claims, and his 
assertion “ that whatever privileges Peter may have received from Christ, it was 
a personal grant to him, and not in any way to be inherited by his successors sa 
(Collette, p. 97), only serves to show that the Pope had c/aimed to be Peter’s suc- 
cessor, and to “inherit his privileges,” and that this claim was allowed and 
acknowledged by the Catholic Church which the Montanist was attacking; and, 
in short, that the Pope’s exercise of his prerogatives, as Peter’s successor, was 
altogether in harmony with the belief and practice of orthodox Christians in those 
early times. 


St. Peter the Rock. 17 


THE CHURCH” (δια τουτου του πνευματος εστερεωθη ἡ πετρα 
της εκκλησιας. In 5. Theophan. n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). 
“Peter, THE ROCK OF THE FAITH, whom Christ our Lord 
called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, 
he who has the keys of the kingdom” (Z% Fabricio, Op. 
Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9). 

St. Cyprian, A.D. 248 :—“ Peter, whom the Lord chose as 
first, and UPON WHOM HE BUILT HIs CHURCH” (Petrus, 
quem primum Dominus elegit, et super quem zedificavit 
ecclesiam suam, fist. |xxi. ad Quintum). “There is one 
Church, founded by Christ the Lord UPON PETER, for the 
origin and purpose of unity” (Una ecclesia a Christo Domino 
super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata. L£fzst. 
Ixx. ad ¥anuar. et cet.). “The Church which is one, and 
FOUNDED UPON ONE, who also received the keys thereof”’ 
(Que una est et super unum, qui et claves ejus accepit, 
Domini voce fundata est. 2162, Ixxiii. n. 11, ad Fubian.). 
‘ON WHOM HE BUILT THE CHURCH, and from whom He 
instituted and showed that unity should spring”. (Super 
quem zdificavit ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit 
et ostendit, 72. n. 7). “ Peter, ON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS 
FOUNDED, by the good pleasure of the Lord ” (Petrus, super 
quem ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata est. De Bono 
Patienti@, n. 10). “There (John vi. 67-69) speaks Peter, 
UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS TO BE BUILT, teaching and 
showing in the name of the Church,” ὅτε. (Loquitur illic 
Petrus, super quem edificanda fuerat ecclesia, ecclesiz 
nomine docens et ostendens, &c. ist. xvi. ad Florent. τι. 
7. Comp. Epist. lix. n.9, ad Cornel.).. ‘UPON HIM ALONE 
HE BUILDS His CHUKCH, and to him commends His sheep 
to be fed” (Super illum unum edificat ecclesiam suam et illi 
pascendas mandat oves suas (De Unitate Ecclesia, n. 4). 
“There is one Church and one chair, FOUNDED BY THE 
VOICE OF THE LORD UPON A ROCK” (Una ecclesia, et cathe- 
dra una super petram Domini voce fundata (Epist. ΧΙ, n. 5, 
ad Plebem. Op. ed. Goldhorn, Lipsiz, 1838-39. 

Fusebius of Ceesarea, A.D. 325 :—“A TRULY BLESSED 


ROCK, in which we too are placed” (In Matt. x. 34, Ex. 
B 


18 St. Peter the Rock. 


Sirmond. tom. vi. p. 1177, ed. Migne). “ Peter, UPON WHOM 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST 15 BUILT” (Πέτρος δὲ eb ῳ 
ovxodopertas ἡ Χριστου εκκλησια. Hist. Eccl. |. vi. c. 25, tom. 
ii. p. 26). See also Demonstrat. Evang. |. 11, c. 4, tom. 
iv. pp. 119-122; De Oper. Bon. Ex. Ep. ii. ad Cor. tom. vi. 
p. 1195. 

Juvencus, A.D. 326 :—‘ Then the Lord thus answers to 
Peter: ‘Thou shalt be blessed.’ Thou supportest the name 
of Peter with worthy fortitude; and UPON THIS FOUNDA- 
TION AND UPON THE STRENGTH OF THIS ROCK I will place 
My edifice that shall stand for ever with everlasting walls” 
(Tu nomen Petri digna virtute tueris: Hac in mole mihi 
saxique in robore ponam Semper mansuras zeternis moeni- 
bus edes. Hist. Evang. in Matt. xvi. lib. iii, Galland, tom. 
iv. p. 618). 

St. James of Nisibis, A.D. 340 :—‘ Simon, who was called 
A ROCK, was deservedly called A ROCK BECAUSE OF HIs 
FAITH” (Serm. i. de Fide, n. i. 13, Galland, tom. v. p. Q). 
“ Our Lord received him, and MADE HIM THE FOUNDATION, 
and called him THE ROCK OF THE EDIFICE OF THE 
CHURCH” (Serm. vii. de Ponitent. n. 6, p. 57). “THE 
ROCK OF FAITH” (Serm. xi. p. 84). 

St. Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 356:—‘ Peter, UPON WHOM 
HE WAS ABOUT TO BUILD HIS CHURCH” (Super quem 
ecclesiam zedificaturus erat), ... “the first confessor of the 
Son of God, THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, the door- 
keeper of the heavenly kingdom” (Primum Filii Dei confes- 
sorem, ecclesie fundamentum, ccelestis regni janitorem. 
Tract. in Ps. cxxxi. n. 4, tom. i. p. 502, ed. Bened. A/zgne). 
“ Oh, in thy designation by a new name, HAPPY FOUNDATION 
OF THE CHURCH, and THE ROCK worthy of the building of 
that which was to scatter the infernal laws, and the gates of 
hell, and all the bars of death” (O, in nuncupatione novi 
nominis felix ecclesie fundamentum, dignaque illius zdifi- 
catione petra, que infernas leges, et tartari portas, et omnia 
mortis claustra dissolveret. Comment. in Matt. xvi. 7, tom. 1. 
p. 750). “THE FIRM ROCK UPON WHICH THE CHURCH 
WAS TO BE BUILT” (Firma superedificande in ea ecclesiz 


St. Peter the Rock. 19 


petra. Jz Ps. cxli. ἢ. 8, p. 603). ‘‘ UNDERLYING THE 
BUILDING OF THE CHURCH, and receiving the keys of the 


kingdom of heaven” (Beatus Simon, edificationi ecclesiz 
subjacens, et claves regni ccelestis accipiens. De Trinit. 1. 
4, C. 20, tom. 1]. p. 147). 

St. Zeno, A.D. 362 :—“ Simon, ON WHOM HE BUILT HIs 
CHURCH ” (Tract. xiii. de Circumezis. 8, Galland, v. p. 127). 

St. Optatus of Milevis, a.p. 368 :—“ Peter, THE HEAD of 
all the Apostles, whence also he was called CEPHAS ” 
(Omnium apostolorum caput Petrus, unde et Cephas appe- 
latus est. De Schism Donat. lib. ii. c. 2, p. 471, Galland, 
tom. v.). His meaning evidently is, that the Apostle was 
called A ROCK, because he was to: be the head of all the 
Apostles. 

St. Ephrem Syrus, A.D. 370:—“ Peter, who was called 
CEPHAS, and who received a testimony from the Great 
Pastor, that ‘ UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD My CHURCH,’ 
by means of the priesthood received also ‘the keys “ 
heaven, as worthy of them” (Tom. iii. Grac. de Sacerd. p, 
3, ed. Assemani. See also tom. ii. Sevm. 13, in Nat. Dom. 
Ρ. 434). 

St. Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 370:—“Seest thou that of the 
disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving 
of the choice, ONE IS CALLED A ROCK, AND IS INTRUSTED 
WITH THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH” (Ὁ μεν πετρα 
καλειται, Kat τους θεμέλιους της εκκλησιας πίστευεται. Orat. 
ΧΧΧΙΙ. ἢ. 18, tom. 1. p. 591, ed. Bened. Migne). “ Peter, 
THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, who had the key” (aretpns apparyeos 
yevetns κληῖδα Nayovtos. Sect. ii. Poem. Moral. tom. ii. p. 325). 

St. Gregory Nyssen, A.D. 370:— The memory of Peter, 
the head of the Apostles, is celebrated ; and glorified indeed 
with him are the other members of the Church; but THE 
CHURCH OF GOD IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED UPON HIM. For 
he is, in accordance with the gift conferred upon him by 
the Lord, THE UNBROKEN AND MOST FIRM ROCK UPON 
WHICH THE LORD BUILT HIS CHURCH” (Πετρος ἡ κεφαλη 
των αποστολων... Οὗτος yap εστι κατα τὴν δοθεισαν αὐτῳ 
παρα Tov κυρίου δωρεαν ἡ αῤῥαγης καὶ οχυρωτατη πετρα, οὐ; 


20 St. Peter the Rock. 


iv την εκκλησιαν ὁ σωτὴρ ῳκοδομήσε. Alt. Orat. de 5. Steph. 


tom. iii. p. 734, ed. Morell, A/zgne). 

S+ Basil the Great, a.D. 370:—“ Peter, UPON WHICH 
ROCK the Lord promised that He would build His Church” (O 
Ilerpos, ef’ ἧς Kat πετρας ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ Kuptos οικοδομησειν αὐτου 
την εκκλησιαν. Ln Isat. Cc. ii, n. 66, p. 427, ed. Bened. 
Migne). “Who, on account of the pre-eminence of his faith, 
RECEIVED ON HIMSELF THE BUILDING OF THE CHURCH” 
(τον δια πίστεως ὑπεροχην ep eavTov THY οἰκοδομην της EKKANTLAS 
δεξαμενον. Lib. ii. Adv. Eunom. n. 4, tom. i. p. 240; see 
also tom. ii. de Panitentid, τι. 4, p. 606). 

St. Pacian, A.D. 372:—“The Lord spoke to one (Peter), 
that thus He might LAY THE FOUNDATION OF UNITY FROM 
ONE” (Ad unum ideo ut unitatem formaret ex uno. Epist. 
iii. ἢ. II, p. 264, Galland, tom. vii.). 

St. Epiphanius, a.D. 385:—‘ The first of the Apostles, 
THAT FIRM ROCK UPON WHICH THE CHURCH OF GOD IS 
BUILT, ‘and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 1, 
But ‘the gates of hell’ are heresies and heresiarchs. For 
in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received 
‘the key of heaven,’ in him who looses on earth and binds 
in heaven. For in him are found all the subtle questions of 
faith” (τον πρωτον των ἀποστόλων, THY πετραν THY TTEPEAY, ep 
nv ἡ εκκλησια Tov θεου ῳφκοδομηται. Anchorat. τι. 9, tom. li. p. 
14, ed. Petavii, Colon. 1682). “ Peter, who was the very chief 
of the Apostles, who became unto us truly A FIRM ROCK, 
founding the faith of the Lord, UPON WHICH THE CHURCH 
WAS IN EVERY WAY BUILT. ... He became A FIRM ROCK 
OF THE BUILDING, AND FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE OF 
GoD” (κορυφαιοτατος των αποστολῶν, ὃς γεγονεν ἡμιν αληθως 
στερεα πέτρα, θεμέλιουσα την πίστιν του κυριου, ed ἡ φκοδομητο 
ἡ EXKANTLA KATA TavTa τρόπον. . . . στέρεᾶ πέτρα οἰκοδομῆς, 
και θεμέλιος οἰκου θεου. Adv. Her. (59), 2. 7, 8, tom, ii. p. 
500). 

οἰ. Ambrose, A.D. 385 :—“ Was He not able to confirm 
the faith of him to whom by His own authority He gave the 
kingdom ? WHOM HE POINTED OUT AS THE FOUNDATION 
OF THE CHURCH, WHEN HE CALLED HIM THE ROCK ?” 


St. Peter the Rock. 21 


(Cui propria auctoritate regnum dabat, hujus fidem firmare 
non poterat; quem cum petram dixit firmamentum ecclesiz 
indicavit? De Fide, lib. iv. c. 5, ἢ. 56, ed. Bened. Migne, 
tom. ii. p. 531). “It is that same Peter to whom He said, 
‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My 
Church. Therefore, WHERE PETER IS, THERE IS THE 
CHURCH”! (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. Ju Ps. xl. ἢ. 30, tom. 
i. p. 879). “Peter’s ship, which is the Church” (Ju Lue. 
lib. iv. 77, p. 1635). . “That ship is not tossed about in 
which prudence sails, where unbelief is not, where faith 
blows. . . . For how could that be tossed about over which 
he presided, IN WHOM IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE 
CHURCH” (Firmamentum ecclesia. Ju Lucam, lib. iv. n. 
68). “IN WHOM IS THE SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH” (In 
quo esset ecclesia firmamentum et magisterium discipline. 
De Virginit. c. 16, n. 105, tom. il. p. 238). “THE ROCK OF 
THE CHURCH” (Petra ecclesia. Hymn. S. Amb. ap. August. 
Retract. lib. i. c. 21. tom. iii. p. 1220). “ He is called THE 
FOUNDATION, because he knew how not only to sustain his 
own, but also that of all (commune). .. . (His) faith, there- 
fore, is the foundation of the Church, for not of the flesh of 
Peter, but of HIS FAITH, was it said that ‘the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it’” (De Jucarnat. c. 5, n. 34, 
p. 71:1}. 

St. Asterius, A.D. 387:—‘“ The Only-begotten denomin- 
ates Peter THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. . . . ‘ Other 
foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ.’ But with a like appellation (to His own) did 
He adorn also that first disciple of His, denominating him A 
ROCK OF THE FAITH. THROUGH PETER, therefore, . 
THE STABILITY OF THE CHURCH IS PRESERVED INCAPABLE 
OF FALL AND UNSWERVING. ... Peter is called THE ROCK 
OF FAITH, and THE FOUNDATION AND SUBSTRUCTURE OF 
THE CHURCH OF GOD” (θεμέλιον tov Πετρον ovopater τῆς 


1 Compare the words of St. Ignatius, A.D. 107 :—‘‘ Where the Bishop 
is, there let the multitude be; even as WHERE Jesus CHRIST IS, THERE IS 


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” (womep ὁποὺ av ἢ Χριστος Ιησους, exer ἡ καθολικὴ 
ἐκκλησια. LEpist. ad. Smyr.n. 8). 


22 St. Peter the Rock. 


exkrnowas. Su εἰ Πετρος.. .. Ty ομοιᾳ Se κλησει ὁ Σωτήρ 
ἡμῶν καὶ τον πρῶτον αὐτου μαθητὴν κατεκοσμῆήσε, TET Pav 
ovopadcas Τῆς πιστεως" δια ITetpov τοίνυν ATTTWTOV Kal ακλινες 
το των εκκλησιων εδρασμα cwtera. . . . Πετρα καλειται της 
πιστεως καὶ θεμέλιος καὶ ὑποβαθρα της κατα θεον εκκλησιας. 
Hom. viii. in SS. Pet. et Paul. tom. ii. Ῥ. 127, Seq. Combefis. 
Paris, 1648; Migne, Patr. Gr. tom. xl. pp. 268, 280). 

St. Chrysostom, A.D. 387:—“ Peter, the chief of the 
Apostles, the first in the Church, .. . and when I name 
Peter, I name THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, THAT FIRM FOUN- 
DATION, ... the first of the disciples,” &c. (ἡ xopudn των 
αποστολων, ὁ TPWTOS εν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ. . . - ITetpov Se ὁταν 
εὐπώ, τὴν πετραν λέγω τὴν αῤῥαγῆ, την κρηπιδα τὴν ασαλεῦτον, 
TOV @TOSTOAOV τον μέγαν, TOY πρῶτον τῶν μαθητων. Tom. il. 
Hom. 3, de Penitentia, n. 4. p. 300, ed. Bened. Mzgne). 
“Peter, that leader of the choir, that mouth of the rest of 
the Apostles, that head of the brotherhood, that one set 
over the entire universe, THAT FOUNDATION OF THE 
CHURCH” (Ὁ ovv Πετρος ὁ Kxopudaios tov χορου, To στομα 
των αποστόολων απαντων, ἡ κεφαλὴ τῆς φρατρίας εκεινῆς, 
O της OLKOUMEVNS ἁπασης προστατής, ὁ θεμέλιος της εκκλησιας. 
Tom. vi. Jn illud, Hoe scitote, n. 4, p. 282). “ὙὉὍπε first of 
the Apostles, THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, the 
leader of the choir of the disciples” (tov mpwrov των ἀποστολων, 
τὴν κρηπιδα της εκκλησιας, TOV κορυφαιον Tov χορου τῶν 
μαθητων. Ad Eos qui scandalizati sunt, n. 17, tom. ili. p. 303). 
‘THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH” (ὁ Πετρος ἡ κρηπις 
της εκκλησιας. In tllud, Vidi Dom. Hom. iv. 25 “ 2de 
pillar of the Church; the buttress of the faith ; THE FOUNDA- 
TION OF THE CONFESSION ; the fisherman of the universe - 
(Tom. iii. Hom. De Dec. Mil. Talent. n. 3, Ὁ. 4). “And I say to 
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my Church,’—that is, ON THE FAITH OF THE CONFESSION. 
Hereby He signifies that many were now about to believe, 
and he raises his thoughts and makes him the pastor... . 
Then He mentions also another honour: ‘ And to thee will I 
give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ What means cs 
will give to thee?’ .. . You perceive how He leads Peter 


St. Peter the Rock. 23 


to a sublime idea of Himself, and reveals and shows Himself 
to be the Son of God by these two promises. For those 
things which are peculiar to God alone—to remit sins, and 
to make the Church incapable of overthrow in so great an 
assault of waves, and to exhibit A FISHERMAN MORE SOLID 
THAN ANY ROCK when the whole world is battling—these 
things He promises Himself to give, as the Father also said 
to Jeremias: ‘I have made thee a pillar of iron anda wall 
of brass’ (Jer. i. 18); but him to one nation, this man in 
every part of the world” (και ανθρωπον ἅλιεα πετρας πασὴης 
αποφηναι στεῤῥοτερον, της οἰκουμένης πολεμουσης ἅπασης, ταῦτα 
αὐτος ἐπαγγέλλεται δωσειν' καθαπερ ὁ Πατὴρ προς τον Ἵερεμιαν 
ἔλεγεν, . . - GAN ἐκεινον μεν ἕνι εθνει, τουτον δε πανταχου TNS 
οἰκουμενης. ‘Tom. vil. Hom. 54, n. 2, p. 548). 

St Jerome, A.D. 390:—“ Peter, UPON WHOM THE LORD 
FOUNDED THE CHURCH” (Petrus, super quem Dominus 
fundavit ecclesiam. Tom. i. Epzst. 41, ad Marcellam, p. 188, 
ed. Migne). “ΡΟΝ WHOM THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED 
in stable massiveness” (Super quem ecclesia Domini stabili 
mole fundata est. Dial. adv. Pelag. \ib. i. ἢ. 14, t. ii. p. 707). 
“ As Christ Himself gave light to the Apostles, that they 
might be called the light of the world, and as they obtained 
other names also from the Lord, so to Simon also, who 
believed on the rock Christ, He bestowed the name of Peter; 
and, according to the metaphor of a rock, it is rightly said of 
him, ‘I will build my Church UPON THEE. ... The ‘gates 
of hell’ are vices and sins, or certainly the doctrines of 
heretics, by which men enticed are led to hell” (Simoni, qui 
credebat in Petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen, ac 
secundum metaphoram petre, recte dicitur ei, zedificabo 
ecclesiam meam super te. Tom. vii. In Matt. xvi. p. 124). 

St. Augustine, A.D. 400 -_“¢ Peter, who had confessed 
Him the Son of God, and in that confession had been called 
THE ROCK UPON WHICH THE CHURCH SHOULD BE BUILT ” 
(Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in 
‘lla confessione appellatus est petra, super quam fabricaretur 
ecclesia. Jn Ps. |xix. ἢ. 4, tom. iv. p. 1020, ed. Bened. 1836). 
Owing to his ignorance of Hebrew, or of Syro-Chaldaic, the 


24 St. Peter the Rock. 


language spoken by Christ, St. Augustine elsewhere proposes 
a different interpretation of the text (Aetract. L im Ξὲ δὰ 
Foann. Tract. 7, n. 14; 76. Tract, 124, n. 5; Serm. 76, n. 
1-4); on which subject see WATERWORTH'S Zhe Fathers on 
St. Peter, pp. 48-50; KENRICK On the Primacy, 5th edit. pp. 
52-54. 

Victor of Antioch, A.D. 405 :- To Simon He gave the 
name Peter, that the name may anticipate the event itself ; 
because as Christ the Lord was about to BUILD HIs 
CHURCH ON PETER—that is, on the unbroken and sound 
doctrine of Peter and his unshaken faith—therefore in pro- 
phetic spirit does He call him Peter ” Un Evang. Mare. c. 3; 
p. 377, Bibl. Max. Pat. t. v.). 

Paulus Orosius, A.D. 419:—“ Peter, . . . constituted THE 
ROCK OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH” (De Lid. 
Arbit. n. 23, p. 165, Galland, ix.). “ Peter, UPON WHICH 
ROCK Christ built His Church” (O Petre, super quam 
petram Christus suam fundavit ecclesiam. Jd. n. 27, p. 160). 

St. Maximus of Turin, A.D. 424:—“ Peter,... THE 
ROCK OF THE CHURCHES, . .. LIKE AN IMMOVABLE ROCK, 
HOLDS TOGETHER THE FRAMEWORK AND THE MASS OF THE 
WHOLE STRUCTURE OF CHRISTIANITY. Peter,.therefore, for 
devotion is called the rock, and the Lord by power is named 
the rock ... Rightly does he merit a fellowship of name 
who also merited a fellowship of work” (Petra ecclesiarum 

tanquam saxum immobile totius operis Christiani 
compagem molemque contineat. Hom. iv. de Petro A post. p. 
24, Bibl. Max. t. vi.), “Through Christ PETER WAS MADE 
THE ROCK, the Lord saying to him, ‘Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock,” &c. (Hic est Petrus, cui Christus Dominus 
communionem sui nominis libenter indulsit; ut enim sicut 
Paulus Apostolus edocuit, Petra erat Christus; ita per 
Christum Petrus factus est petra, dicente ei Domino: Zz 
es Petrus, &c. Ib. in Natal. App. Pet. et Paul, Hom. 1. 
p. 34. See also Hom. de Eod, Fest. p. 377, Galland, ix. Serm. 
42, p. 391; Serm. 72, p. 393, Galland). 

St. Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 424:—“ Allusively to 
the name from the rock, He changes his name to Peter 


St. Peter the Rock. 25 


for ON HIM HE WAS ABOUT TO FOUND His CHURCH” 
(φερωνυμως Se απο της πετρας μετωνομαξε ITerpov ἐπ᾽ ἀντῳ yap 
ἐμέλλε την αὐτου θεμέλιουν εκκλησιαν. Ln Foann. i. 42, lib. 
ii. p. 131, ed. Aubert. tom. vi. Migne). “ Calling, I think, the 
rock, THE IMMOVABLENESS IN THE FAITH OF THE DISCIPLE” 
(In Isai. lib. iv. p. 593, tom. iii.). “ Then He also names another 
honour: ‘ Upon this rock I will build my Church; and to 
thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Observe 
how He summarily manifests Himself Lord of heaven and 
earth, for . . . He promises to found the Church, assigning 
immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of virtues, and OVER 
THIS HE SETS PETER SHEPHERD. Then He says, ‘And I 
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Neither 
angel, nor any other intellectual power, is able to utter this 
voice” (Jn Matt. xvi. tom. v. p. 55). 

Theodoret, A.D. 424:—‘‘ THE GREAT FOUNDATION OF 
THE CHURCH” (Heret. Fad. lib. v. c. 28). 

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, A.D. 429:—“ THE MOST FIRM 
ROCK, which, from that principal rock, received a participa- 
tion of His virtue and name” (De Vocat. Gentium, lib. 1. ς. 
28, p. 185, Bibl. Max. tom. viii. 

St. Leo the Great, A.D. 440 :—“‘ And I,’ He says, ‘say 
to thee,’ that is, as My Father has manifested to thee My 
Divinity, so also do I make known to thee thy eminence. 
‘For thou art Peter,’ that is, whereas I am the inviolable 
rock; I the corner-stone who made both one; I the founda- 
tion besides which no one can lay other; yet THOU ALSO 
ART A ROCK, because thou art consolidated by My might, 
that what things are Mine alone by My power may be com- 
mon to thee by participation with Me” (Tu quoque petra es, 
quia mea virtute consolidaris, ut que mihi potestate sunt 
propria, sint tibi mecum participatione communia). Serm. 
iv, in Natal. Ordin. c. 2, ed. Baller). “The Lord willed 
that the mystery of this gift (of Divine religion to all the 
world) should so belong to the office of all the Apostles as 
to seat it chiefly in the most blessed Peter, highest of all the 
Apostles ; and from him, as it were from the head, He wills 
His gifts to flow as into the whole body ; that whoever dares 


26 St. Peter the Rock. 


to recede from THE SOLIDITY OF PETER, may know that he 
has no part in the Divine mystery. For him, assumed into 
the participation of His indivisible unity, He willed to be 
named what He Himself was, by saying, ‘Thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build My. Church, THAT THE 
REARING OF THE ETERNAL TEMPLE, BY THE WONDERFUL 
GIFT OF THE GRACE OF GOD, MIGHT CONSIST NOW IN THE 
SOLIDITY OF PETER, strengthening with this firmness His 
Church, that neither the rashness of men might attempt it, 
nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Sed hujus muneris 
sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium apostolorum officium 
pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro, apostolorum omnium 
summo, principaliter collocaverit: et ab ipso quasi quodam 
capite, dona sua velit in corpus omne manare. ut exortem 
se mysterii intelligeret esse divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri 
soliditate recedere. Hunc enim in consortium individuz 
unitatis assumptum, id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari, 


dicendo: Zu es Petrus, &c.; ut zxterni templi zdificatio, 


mirabili munere σταῖς Dei, in Petri soliditate consisteret; hac 
ecclesidm suam firmitate corroborans, ut illam nec humana 
temeritas posset appetere, nec porte contra illam inferi pre- 
valerent. Ἐς. x. ad Epise. per Prov. Vienn. in causa Hilariz, 
c. i, tom. i. p. 633). “ THE ROCK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, 
which name the blessed Apostle Peter received from the 
Lord” (Catholice fidei petra, cujus cognomen beatus Apos- 
tolus Petrus sumpsit a Domino. rst. cxix. ἢ. 2,ad Maxim. 
Antioch, Episc.). 

General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. In this Council 
the Legate Philip called Peter “THE PILLAR OF THE FAITH, 
THE FOUNDATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ” (ὁ κιων TNS 
πίστεως, ὁ θεμέλιος της καθολικης εκκλησιας. Concil. Eph. 
Act. iii. p. 625, Labbe). 

General Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. In the sen- 
tence against Dioscorus, approved of by all the Bishops,} 
Peter is called “THE ROCK AND FOUNDATION OF THE CA- 


1 ** The unanimous Council subscribes the judgment,” —MILMAN’S /itst. of Lat. 
Christ. Ὁ. ii. ch. iv. vol. i. p. 268, ed. 1867. This Council was composed of about 
600 Bishops, almost all of the Eastern Church. 


St. Peter the Rock. 27 


THOLIC CHURCH, and THE FOUNDATION OF THE ORTHODOX 
FAITH ” (ὃς eoTw πετρα Kal κρηπὶς τῆς καθολικης εκκλησιας, 
καὶ τῆς ορθοδοξου πίστεως ὁ θεμελιος. Concil. Chal. iii. p. 425, 
Labbe, iv.). 

Formula of Pope Hormisdas, A.D. 517 (v. 7/ra, p. 68). 
The above extracts are sufficient! to show that the early 
Fathers were unanimous in applying the words “ THIS 
ROCK,” Matt. xvi. 18, to ST. PETER; but it should be 
observed, that many of those who wrote subsequently to the 
Arian controversy interpreted them, also, in a secondary and 
figurative sense, of St. Peter's faith and confession, and of our 
Lord Himself as the primary and invisible Rock whom Peter 
represented. 

BALLERINI, in his work De Vi ac Ratione Primatus, heads 
a section in cap. ii., “ Petree nomine fidem S. Petri significari 
Patrum traditione ostenditur,” and, after citing many Fathers, 
Popes, and ecclesiastical writers who give this interpretation, 
he adds: “Itaque fetre nomine S. Petre confessionem ac 
fidem esse accipiendam tanta ac tam aperta Patrum, Pontifi- 
cum, ac ecclesiasticorum librorum traditio nos dubitare non 


sinit” (p. 77, ed. Westhoff, 1845). The words of AMBROSE, 
CHRYSOSTOM, VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, and CYRIL OF ALEX- 
ANDRIA, have been given in pp. 21, 22, 24, 25, and exemplify 


1 PassaGLia (De Prerog. S. Petri), BALLERINI, and others, give extracts 
from various ancient Sacramentaries and Liturgies, which confirm the same fact. 
The Irish St. Sechnall, or Secundinus, 2 disciple of St. Patrick, whom 
he assisted in the administration of the See of Armagh till his death in 448, says 
in his hymn in praise of that Saint: “" He is constant in the service of God, and 
immoveable in the faith as Peter, UPON WHOM THE CHURCH IS BUILT, and 
whose apostolate he received from God, against whose bulwark the assaults of 
hell cannot prevail” (Constans in Dei timore et fide immobilis Super quem 
edificatur, ut Petrus, ecclesia: Cujusque apostolatum a Deo sortitus est In cujus 
porta adversus inferni non prevalent. Lib, Hymn. p. 12, Publ. of I. A. S. 
1855). See Dr. Moran’s Zssays on Early Irish Church (p. 91), in which the 
statements of Usher and later Protestant writers regarding the faith of the early 
Irish Church are thoroughly refuted. As a specimen of the language used by 
the later GREEK writers, it may suffice to quote the words of St. John 
Damascene, who calls St. Peter “ that Coryphzeus of the Apostles, THE 
FIRM FOUNDATION, THE UNBROKEN ROCK,” ἄς. (Πετρον exewov Tov κορυφαιον 
των αποστολων, THY KpyTida THY ασαλευτον, THY WETPAY τὴν αῤῥαγῆ, Tov περιβολον 
της εκκλησιας, τον λιμενά TOV ἀχειμᾶστον, Tov πυργον Tov αἀσαλεῦτον. in Sacr. 

“γα δῖ. tom. ii. p. 591, ed. Migne). 


28 St. Peter the Rock. 


what the other writers have said. Archbishop KENRICK 
observes that “all who interpret it (the ‘rock’) of the faith as 
confessed by Peter, perfectly harmonise with those who 
expound it of Peter himself; so that these two interpreta- 
tions, which at first sight appear different, are in reality 
identical! It is worthy of remark that, defore the vise of 
Arianism, no Father explained the rock of the confession of 
Peter, which interpretation was first suggested by the 
necessity of employing every available weapon against that 
impiety. It is also to be observed, that no Father who 
declares faith to be the rock expressly excludes Peter, while 
many positively mention him conjointly with the confession.” 
F. BOTTALLA says: “Mr. Palmer and his friends, on the 
authority of Dupin, reply that many Fathers understood the 
rock to mean our Lord; others, the true faith; and others, 
the Apostles collectively. But Mr. Palmer supposes that 
those Fathers intended to give their interpretations as being 
the literal sense of the words of Christ. If such is his 
opinion, he does a great injustice to the Fathers, by suppos- 
ing them to have adopted a strange, an unnatural, a dis- 
torted, a fanciful interpretation; for such are the terms which 
ROSENMULLER, KUINOEL, BENGEL, BLOOMFIELD, ALFORD, 
and others apply to these various interpretations ; and, 
moreover, by falsely representing them as σαν of self- 
contradiction; for all the Fathers who, before the sixth 
century, seem to have adopted any of the above-mentioned 
interpretations, referred the rock literally to St. Peter. . 

Now if those very Fathers who understood the rock either of 
Christ, or of Peter’s faith and confession, are to be found 
maintaining the obvious reference of the rock to St. Peter, it 
manifestly follows that, in proposing that collateral, mediate, 
and indirect exposition, they did not forget the immediate, 


original, and traditional interpretation of the rock, ever 
maintained by the Church Catholic. But, further, the literal 
interpretation which refers the rock to St. Peter, so far from 
excluding the other interpretations given above, ts perfectly con- 
sistent with them. ‘Nay, all these interpretations, if we put 


1 This, of course, is shown also by Ballerini. 


St. Peter the Rock. 29 


them together, supply us with the complete and full meaning 
of Christ’s words. For St. Peter was, it is true, appointed 
the rock on which the Church was to be built; but he was 
not to be the principal, the original rock, from which the 
Church was to derive its internal strength. Peter was not 
himself to be the rock; ‘that rock was Christ, according to 
the words of the Apostle; and ‘other foundation can no 
man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ 
Peter was to be the rock of the Church, but secondarily to 
Christ, from whom the Church was to receive its stability. 
Yet he was to be the outward and visible rock, whilst Christ 
was the inward and invisible foundation. Moreover, faith, 
and faith in Christ, is the principle which constitutes Christ's 
Church. Therefore Peter was appointed to be the rock of 
the Church on account of his faith in, and public confession 
of, the Divinity of Christ. In other words, our Lord founded 
His Church upon Peter, who had solemnly professed his 
faith in His Divinity. Peter, then, is the rock, because he 
represents, and in a manner embodies, the principle of faith 
in Christ. On this account some of the Fathers, whilst 
taking the rock in its literal sense, at the same time say also 
that faith in Christ, or public confession of this faith, is the 
rock of the Church. These interpretations, far from being 
incompatible, rather are naturally implied each in the other, 
and serve to bring out the full import of the words of Christ. 
What wonder, then, if in the fourth and fifth centuries, when 
Arianism impugned the Divinity of Christ and attempted to 
shake the rock of the Church, the Fathers lifted up their 
voice, and denounced the heretics as destroyers of the 
Church; for the Church, as they teach, is built on the rock 
of Christ, on the confession of His Divinity? In speaking 
thus, they did not revect the literal sense handed down by the 
tradition of the first three centuries, which they themselves had 
already repeatedly set forth in their writings. But in opposing 
the Arian heresy and its offshoots, they preferred to aim a 
blow against it by the use of the mediate, indirect, and 
relative interpretation” (Bottalla, The Pope and the Church, 
part i. pp. 36-38). On the secondary and figurative interpre- 


30 St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 


tations here referred to, see Waterworth, Zhe Fathers on St. 
Peter, pp. 45-50; Passaglia, De Prerogat. S. Petri, lib. 11. c. 
iv. pp. 412-421, 442; Murray, De Ecclesia, vol. 111. pp. 422-430. 


2. The Key-bearer—Keeper of the Heavenly Gate—Door- 
keeper of the Heavenly Kingdom, &c, (in reference to Matt. 
Xvi. 10). 

Tertullian :—“If thou thinkest heaven is still closed, 
remember that THE LORD LEFT HERE THE KEYS THEREOF 
ΤῸ PETER, and, THROUGH HIM, to the Church” (Memento 
claves ejus hic Dominum Petro, et per eum ecclesiz reli- 
quisse. Scorpiace,n. 10). “PETER, who obtained the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and of 
binding in heaven and on earth” (Latuit aliquid Petrum... 
claves regni ccelorum consecutum, &c. De Prescript. Heret. 
n. 22). 

Origen observes that there is “much difference between 
what is spoken to Peter and what to the others. For it is 
no small distinction that Peter should receive the keys, not 
of one heaven, but of many. ... For they (the others) do 
not TRANSCEND IN POWER, AS PETER, so as to bind and 
loose in all the heavens” (πολλὴν διαφοραν καὶ ὑπεροχὴν εκ 
των προς Tov Iletpov εἰρημένων Tapa τοὺς δευτερους" ou yap ολυγὴ 
διαφορα tov Πετρον εἰληφεναι tas κλεῖδας οὐχ ἑνοξ ουρανου, 
αλλα πλειονων . - . Ov yap διαβαινουσι Ty δυναμει ws ITerpos, 
iva δησωσιν ἡ λυσωσιν εν πᾶσιν ovpavois. Ln Matt. tom. Xiii. 
n, 31, p. 613). 

St. Cyprian :—‘ The Church, which is one, and was by 
the voice of the Lord founded upon one, WHO ALSO RE- 
CEIVED THE KEYS THEREOF” (Ecclesia, que una est, et super 
unum, qui et claves ejus accepit, Domini voce fundata est. 
Epist. \xxiii. ad Fubianum, τι. 11). 

St. Hilary :—‘“‘THE DOOR-KEEPER OF THE HEAVENLY 
KINGDOM” (Tract. in Ps. cxxxi. n. 4, tom, i, p. 503). “Ὁ 
blessed KEEPER OF THE GATE OF HEAVEN, to whose dis- 
posal are delivered the keys of the entrance into eternity ; 
whose judgment on earth is an authority prejudged in 


St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 31 


heaven” (O beatus cceli janitor, cujus arbitrio claves zeterni 
aditus traduntur, cujus terrestre judicium preejudicata aucto- 
ritas sitin ccelo. J Matt. xvi. 7, p. 749). 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem :—“ Peter, who BEARS WITH HIM 
THE KEYS OF HEAVEN” (ὁ τας κλεὶς τῶν ουρανῶν περιφερων. 
Catech. Myst. vi.n. 15). “ Prince of the Apostles, and THE 
KEY-BEARER OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ” (τῆς βασίλειας 
των οὐρανων κλειδουχος ITerpos. Catech. xvii. n. 27. Comp. Cat. 
xiv. n, 26). 

St. Optatus of Milevis:—“ The keys, which PETER 
ALONE RECEIVED” (Claves, quas solus Petrus accepit. De 
Schism. Donat. lib. i. c. 10, p. 42). “ For the sood of unity, 
blessed Peter both merited to be preferred before all the 
Apostles, and HE ALONE RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE 
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, that he might communicate them to 
the others” (Bono unitatis beatus Petrus preferri apostolis 
omnibus meruit, et claves regni ccelorum communicandas 
ceteris solus accepit. Jd. lib. vil. c. 3, Ρ. 244, ed, Hurter, 
1870). 

St. Ephrem Syrus :—‘“ The Prince of the Apostles, who 
had RECEIVED THE KEYS, and was accounted the shepherd 
of the flock” (Tom. ii. Sy7. ἵν]. Adv. Her. p. 559, ed. Asse- 
man). “We hail thee, Peter, the tongue of the disciples, the 
voice of the heralds, the eye of the Apostles, THE KEEPER OF 
HEAVEN, THE FIRST-BORN OF THOSE THAT BEAR THE 
KEYS” (των αποστολων ἡ ois, τῶν ουρανῶν ὁ φυλαξ, ὁ των 
κλειδουχὼων πρωτοτοκος. Tom. iii. Gr. in SS. Apost. p. 464). 
See also extract given in p. 19. 

St. Gregory Nyssen :—“ Through PETER He gave (to 
Bishops) the key of the supercelestial honours” (δια Πετρὸν 
εδωκε την κλειδα των επουρανιὼν τιμῶν. De Compunctione, p. 
312, tom. ii.). 

St. Gregory Nazianzen :—“ Peter, that unbroken rock, 
WHO HAD THE KEY” (πετρης appayeos γενετῆς κληῖδα 
λαχοντος. Sect. ii. Poem. Moral. p. 325, tom. ii.). 

St. Basil :—‘“ That blessed Peter, who was preferred before 
all the disciples; who alone received a greater testimony and 
blessing than the rest ; he TO WHOM WERE INTRUSTED THE 


32 St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 


e 


KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN” (ὁ μακαρίος Πετρος, 0 
παντων pev των μαθητων προκριθεις, μονος δὲ πλειον τῶν 
αλλων μαρτυρηθεις και μακαρίσθεις, ὁ τας κλεὶς των ουρανῶων 
πιστευθέις. Proem. de Fud. Dei, n. 7, tom. il. p. 221). 

St. Epiphanius :—“ In every way was the faith confirmed 
ἢ HIM WHO RECEIVED THE KEYS OF HEAVEN ; who looses 
on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all the 
subtle questions of faith” (Tom. ii. Anchorat. n. 9, Ῥ. 15). 
See the context, supra, Ὁ. 20. 

s+ Ambrose:—“ Him TO WHOM HE GAVE THE KING- 
pom” (De Fide, lib. iv. c. 5, ἢ. 56). “Peter strikes off his 
ear; and why Peter? Because HE IT IS WHO RECEIVED 
THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ; for he condemns 
and absolves, since he received the power both of binding 
and of loosing, He strikes off the ear of him who sins by his 
hearing, but by the spiritual sword he will cut off the inward ear 
of him who sins by his understanding” (Ipse est qui accepit 
claves regni ccelorum; ille enim condemnat qui et absolvit, 
quoniam idem et ligandi et solvendi adeptus est potestatem. 
In Lucam, lib. x. ἢ. 67, p. 1821). “ What fellowship can 
these (Novations) have with Thee; men who take not up 
THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM, denying that they ought to 
forgive sins; which, indeed, they rightly confess of them- 
selves ; for they have not PETER’S INHERITANCE who have 
not Peter’s chair, which they rend with impious division ”’ 
(Non habent Petri hereditatem, qui Petri sedem non habent, 
quam impia divisione discerpunt. De Penitent. \ib. 1. c. 7, 
n. 32, p. 399). 

St. Asterius :—“Peter went not away unrequited and un- 
rewarded ; but, declared ‘ Blessed’ by the truly blessed, he is 
called the rock of faith, and the foundation and substructure 
of the Church of God. He receives, too, by promise, ‘the keys 
of the kingdom, and BECOMES THE LORD OF THE GATES 
THEREOF, so as to open them to whom he may choose, and 
to close them against those against whom they justly ought 
to be shut,—plainly against the defiled and profane, and the 
deniers of this confession, through which, as a careful guar- 
dian of the wealth of the Churches, he was APPOINTED TO 


St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 33 


PRESIDE OVER THE ENTRANCES INTO THE KINGDOM” (7077. 
in Apost. Pet. et Paul. tom. ii. p. 127 56... 

St. Chrysostom :—“Great was God’s consideration to- 
wards this city (Antioch), as He manifested by deeds ; inas- 
much as Peter, who was set over the whole habitable world ; 
INTO WHOSE HANDS HE PUT THE KEYS OF HEAVEN; to 
whom he intrusted to do and to support all things ; him He 
ordered to tarry here for a long time”? (0772. in St. [gnat. 
Martyr. tom. ii. p. 712). 

Ambrosiaster, A.D. 380 :—‘ The first Apostle, TO WHOM 
THE LORD GAVE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ? 
(Com. in Ep. ad Galat. ii. 11, Ap. Op. St. Ambros.). 

St. Augustine :—“ Amongst the Apostles almost every- 
where Peter alone merited to bear the person of the Church. 
On account of this very person, which he alone of the whole 
Church bore, he merited to hear, ‘To thee I will give the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven. For these keys not one 
man, but the unity of the Church received. Hence the 
excellence of Peter is set forth, because he bore the figure of 
that very universality and unity of the Church when to him 
was said, ‘To thee’ I deliver what was delivered to all”? 
(Tom. v. Serm. ccxcv. 7 Wat. App. Pet. et Paul.n. 2). © Not 
without cause amongst allthe Apostles does Peter sustain the 
person of the Church Catholic ; for to this Church were ‘ the 


1 In another Homily he says: ‘‘ This is also one privilege of our city, that it 
received in the beginning for its teacher THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES. For it 
was befitting that city which, before the rest of the world, was crowned with the 
name of Christian, should receive as shepherd the first of the Apostles. But, 
after having had him as our teacher, WE DID NOT RETAIN HIM, BUT SUR- 
RENDERED HIM TO IMPERIAL RoME” (Tom. iii. Hom. ii. in Inscript. Act. τι. 
6, p. 70). 

2 This theory was propounded by St. Augustine in opposition to the Donatist 
heretics, who made the efficacy of the sacraments depend on the holiness of the 
minister. See the note on his doctrine in Waterworth’s “ Fathers on St. Peter,” 
pp. 48-50; also the remarks of Archbishop Kenrick (Zhe Primacy of the Apostolic 
See, pp. 53, 54), who concludes from the above and numerous other passages in 
Augustine’s works, that what he inculcates is plainly that the Church received 
the power of forgiveness through Peter, who in his official capacity represented 
her, on account of the primacy of his Apostleship. This does not imply that the 
keys, as symbols of governing power, were not given to Peter in a more special 
manner. 


ς 


34 St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 


᾽ 


keys of the kingdom’ of heaven given, when given to Peter ° 
(Tom. vi. de Agone Christ. n. 32, Ὁ. 439). 

Prudentius, A.D. 405 :—“ Possessing the FIRST CHAIR, he 
(Peter) THROWS OPEN THE GATES OF ETERNITY, THAT HAVE 
BEEN INTRUSTED TO HIM” (Cathedram possidens primam, 
recludit creditas zternitatis januas. ymin. ii.in St. Laurent. 
Galland, viii. p. 440). 

Zaccheeus, A.D. 421 :—“ Peter, INTO WHOSE PERSON 
THE POWER OF ALL PRIESTS IS GATHERED TOGETHER ¢ 
(Petrum, in cujus personam potestas omnium convenit sacer- 
dotum. Lib. ii. Consult. Zacch. c. 18, Galland, ix. p. 238). 

General Council of Ephesus :—“ It is doubtful to none 
_,. that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince and 
head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of 
the Catholic Church, RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE KING- 
DOM from our Lord Jesus Christ, .. . and to him is power 
given to bind and loose,” ἄς. (Acz. ili. p. 624). 

St. Maximus of Turin :—“ Diligently notice what the 
greatness of his glory TO WHOM THE KEYS OF THE ETERNAL 
KINGDOM ARE COMMITTED, and it is permitted to him to 
shut and to open heaven” (Cui dum claves regni committun- 
tur eterni, ccelum illi claudere et aperire permissum est. 
Hom. iii. in Fest. Ap. Pet. et Paul. Bib. Max. Pat. vi. p. 35). 
Comparing Peter and Paul, he says: “To Peter, as to a good 
steward, He gave ‘the key of the kingdom of heaven ;’ to 
Paul, as a fit teacher, He enjoined the mastership of eccle- 
siastical institution. . .. Both received keys from the Lord ; 
the one of knowledge, THE OTHER OF POWER” (Petro sicut 
bono dispensatori clavem regni ccelestis dedit, Paulo tanquam 
idoneo doctori magisterium ecclesiastice institutionis injunxit. 
.. . Ambo igitur claves a Domino perceperunt, scientiz iste, 
ille potenti. Hom. v. de Eodem Fest. p. 36). “To Peter He 
gave the keys of the kingdom ; to Paul He gave the word of 
wisdom: to each a wonderful work” (De Zod. Galland, ix. 
p. 377). “Iwill make thee, He says, bear A PERPETUAL 


1 Comp. Venantius Fortunatus, 4.D. 570:—“ Doctior hic (Paulus) 
monitis, celsior ille (Petrus) gradu” (Lib. 1:1, Carm. 7). Andagain: ‘‘ Princeps 
clave Petrus, primus quoque dogmate Paulus ” (Lib. ix. Carm, 2). 


St. Peter the Key-Bearer. 35 


PRIMACY IN HEAVEN AND IN MY KINGDOM” (Serm. \xxii. 
De Verb. Evan. Vos estis sal terre, Galland, p. 393). 

St. Leo the Great :—“ The right of this power (of the 
keys) passed also indeed to the other Apostles, and the con- 
stitution of this decree has flowed on to all the princes of the 
Church; but not in vain is that INTRUSTED TO ONE which 
is intimated to all. For to Peter is this therefore intrusted 
individually, because the pattern of Peter is set before all the 
rulers of the Church. THE PRIVILEGE OF PETER THERE- 
FORE REMAINS, whatever judgment is passed in accordance 
with his equity” (Non frustra uni commendatur, quod omni- 
bus intimatur. Petro enim ideo hoc singulariter creditur, 
quia cunctis ecclesiz rectoribus Petri forma preponitur. 
Manet ergo Petri privilegium, ubicunque ex ipsius fertur 
eequitate judicium. Serm. iv. ix Natal. Ord. c. 3, ed. Baller. ; 
et p. 23, Serm. Select. ed. Hurter, 1871). 

St. Peter Chrysologus:—‘Let Peter hold his long-estab- 
lished HEADSHIP OVER THE APOSTOLIC CHOIR ; let him open 
to those who enter the kingdom of heaven ” (Petrus apostolici 
chori vetustum teneat principatum, aperiat intrantibus reg- 
numccelorum. Serm. cliv. p. 217, Bibl. Max. Pat. tom. vii.). 

Eulogius of Alexandria, a.D. 581 :—“ Neither to John, 
nor to any other of the disciples, did our Saviour say, ‘1 will 
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but TO 
PETER” (ουτε προς ᾿Ιωαννην, ovte προς ἕτερον Twa των μαθητων 
εφη ὁ Σωτὴρ το' καὶ δωσω σοι τᾶς κλεις τῆς βασιλειᾶς των 
ουρανων, καὶ ta εξης: add’ ἡ προς Πετρον. Lib, ii. Cont. 
Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth. cod. 280). 

St. Gregory the Great, A.D. 604 :—“It is evident to all 
who know the Gospel, that by the voice of the Lord the care 
of the whole Church was committed to holy Peter, the prince 
of all the Apostles. For to him it is said, .. . ‘Thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. And to 
thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Behold, 
HE RECEIVES THE KEYS OF THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM; THE 
POWER OF BINDING AND OF LOOSING IS GIVEN TO HIM; TO 
HIM THE CARE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH 
IS COMMITTED” (Cunctis evangelium scientibus liquet, quod 


26 St. Peter the Confirmer of the Brethren. 


a 

voce Dominica sancto et omnium Apostolorum principi 
Petro Apostolo totius ecclesize cura commissa est... - Ecce 
claves regni ccelestis accipit, potestas εἰ ligandi ac solvendi 
tribuitur, cura ei totius ecclesie et principatus committitur. 
Epist. ad Maurit. August. lib. iv. epist. 32). 

Venerable Bede, A.D. 700 :—" Blessed Peter IN A SPECIAL 
MANNER received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and 
THE HEADSHIP OF JUDICIARY POWER, that all believers 
throughout the world might understand that all those who 
in any way separate themselves from the unity of his faith 
and communion,—such can neither be absolved from the 
bonds of their sins, nor enter the gate of the heavenly king- 
dom” (Beatus Petrus specialiter claves regni coelorum et 
principatum judiciariz potestatis accepit, ut omnes per orbem 
credentes intelligant, quia quicumque ab unitate fidei vel 
societatis illius quolibet modo semetipsos segregant, tales 
nec vinculis peccatorum absolvi, nec januam possint reoni 
ceelestis ingredi. Beda. Ven. Hom. in die SS. Pet. et Paut.). 
The Irish Claudius, Bishop of Auxerre in the tenth century, 
seems to have adopted this passage from Bede, in his Com- 


ment. in St. Matt. Evang. (Vide Dr. Moran’s Essays on the 
Early Irish Church, p. 108). 


3. In reference to Luke xxii. 31, 32, in which Christ prays 
« that the faith of Peter might never fail,’ and commands him 
to “confirm his brethren,” the Fathers call him The Confirmer 
of the Brethren— The Foundation and Pillar of the Faith— 
The One Intrusted with the Care of all—The Support of the 
Church, ὅς. 

st. Ambrose :—“ Peter, after having been tempted by 
the devil, is SET OVER THE CHURCH (ecclesize preponitur). 
The Lord, therefore, signified beforehand what that is, that 
He afterwards chose him the pastor of the Lord’s flock. 
For to him He said, ‘ But thou, when thou art converted, 
confirm thy brethren’ ” (In Ps. xiii, n. 40, Ρ. 1109). “To 
whom He gave the kingdom, his faith could He not con- 


St. Peter the Confirmer of the Brethren. 37 


firm ?” (De Fide, lib. iv. c. 5, 0. 56). See context, supra, 
p. 20. 

St. Chrysostom, on the words, “In those days Peter 
rose up in the midst of the disciples ” (Acts i. 15) :—“ Both 
as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock, 
he first acts with authority in the matter, as HAVING 
ALL PUT INTO HIS HANDS; forto him Christ had said, ‘And 
thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren’ ” (IIpwtos του 
πραγματος αὐθεντει, ate avTos παντᾶς εγχειρίσθεις, προς yap 
τοῦτον €LTTEV ὁ Χριστος" καὶ ΠΟΤΕ επίστρεψας, στηρίσον τοὺς 
αδέλφους cov. Hom. iii. in Act. A post. tom. ix. p. 26). 

St. Cyril of Alexandria :—“" Confirm thy brethren;’ that 
is, become THE SUPPORT AND TEACHER OF THOSE WHO 
COME TO ME BY FAITH” (τούυτεστι yevou στηρίγμα Kat 
διδασκαλος των δια πίστεως προσιοντων ἐμοι Ln Luc. p. 420, 
tom. v.). 

St. Leo the Great :—“ For the faith of Peter in particular 
does He pray, as if the state of the others would be more sure 
if the mind of their prince were not conquered. IN PETER, 
therefore, the fortitude of all is defended, and the help of 
Divine grace is so ordered, that the firmness which through 
Christ is given to Peter may THROUGH PETER be conferred 
on the Apostles. Therefore, since we see that so greata 
safeguard has been divinely instituted for us, reasonably and 
justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, 
siving thanks to our everlasting King and Redeemer, who 
GAVE SO GREAT A POWER TO HIM WHOM HE MADE THE 
PRINCE OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, that if anything is rightly 
done and rightly ordered by us, even in these our days, it be 
referred to his doing, to his governing, unto whom was said, 
‘ And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren ° ” (Commune erat 


1 Cf. Theophylactus :—“ This (to “ confirm thy brethren’) becometh thee, 
WHO, AFTER ME, ART THE ROCK AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 
We may suppose that this has not been said of the Apostles alone, that they were 
to be confirmed by Peter, but OF ALL THE FAITHFUL, EVEN TO THE END OF 
THE WORLD”? (στήρισον Tous λοιπους΄. TOUTO ‘yap προσήκει σοι ws μετ᾽ ἐμε οντι της 
EKKANTLAS πετρα καὶ στηριγμᾶ, . . - ὡς αν ὑποστηριχθωσιν ὑπο του Πετρου, αλλα 
και περι παντων των ἄχρι THS συντελειας τοῦ αἰῶνος πιστων. Comment in Luc. 
xxii. Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. cxxiii. p. 1073). 


,8 St. Peter the Confirmer of the Brethren. 


omnibus Apostolis periculum de tentatione formidinis, et di- 
vine protectionis auxilio pariter indegebant, quoniam diabolus 
omnes exagitare, omnes cupiebat elidere; et tamen specialis a 
Domino Petri cura suscipitur, et pro fide Petri proprie sup- 
plicatur, tanquam aliorum status certior sit futurus, si mens 
principis victa non fuerit. In Petro ergo omnium fortitudo 
munitur, et divine gratie ita ordinatur auxilium, ut firmitas, 
que per Christum Petro tribuitur, per Petrum Apostolis con- 
feratur. Cum itaque, dilectissimi, tantum nobis videamus 
presidium divinitus institutum, rationabiliter et juste in ducis 
nostri meritis et dignitate letamur, gratias agentes sempiterno 
Regi Redemptori nostro Domino Jesu Christo, quod tantam 
potentiam dedit ei, quem totius ecclesie principem fecit: ut 
si quid etiam temporibus nostris recte per nos agitur, recteque 
disponitur, illius operibus, illius sit gubernaculis deputandum, 
cui dictum est: AZ tu conversus confirma fratres tuos. Et 
cui post resurrectionem suam Dominus ad trinam eterni 
amoris professionem mystica insinuatione ter dixit: Pasce 
oves meas. Quod nunc quoque procul dubio facit, et manda- 
tum Domini pius pastor exsequitur, confirmans nos exhor- 
tationibus suis, et pro nobis orare non cessans, ut nulla 
tentatione superemur. Serm. iv. Ὁ. 3, 4, ed. Ball.; et pp. 23-25, 
Serm. Select. ed. Hurter, 1871). 

Theodoret :—“ The great foundation of the Church was 
shaken, and confirmed by the Divine grace... . And the 
Lord commanded him to apply the same care to the breth- 
ren: ‘And thou,’ He says, ‘ converted, confirm thy brethren *” 
(Tom. iv. Heret. Fad. lib. v. c. 28, p. 478). “ For as I,” He 
says, “ did not overlook thee when thou wast tottering, so do 
thou also become A SUPPORT TO THY BRETHREN WHEN 
SHAKEN, and communicate of that help of which thou hast 
partaken. ... Then did the great pillar support the totter- 
ing world, ... and received a command to feed the sheep of 
God” (οὕτω την οἰκουμενην σαλευομενην ὁ μεγας οὗτος στυλος 
emnpeice, κατὰ. Orat. de Sanct. Carit. tom. iii, p. 1309). 

In the General Council of Ephesus St. Peter is called 
“THE PILLAR OF THE FAITH” (ὁ mv της πίστεως. Act. iil. 


p. 625). 


St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 39 


In the General Council of Chalcedon :—“ THE FOUNDA- 
TION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH” (τῆς ορθοδοξου πίστεως ὁ 
θεμέλιος. Act. iii. p. 425). 

Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492 :—‘‘ For the government of the 
Apostolic See, engaged without ceasing in THE CARE OF 
THE WHOLE FLOCK OF THE LORD, which care was DELE- 
GATED TO THE BLESSED PETER by the voice of our Saviour 
Himself, ‘And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren, we 
neither can, nor ought to, dissemble such things as constrain 
our solicitude” (Pro Sedis Apostolic moderamine totius 
ovilis dominici curam sine cessatione tractantes, que beato 
Petro Salvatoris ipsius nostri voce delegata est: E¢ tu con- 
versus fratres confirma tuos. Etitem: Petre amas me? Pasce 


oves meas. Epist.v. ad Honorium Dalmat. Epise. Labbe, 1v. 
p. 1170). 

Pope Pelagius II., a.p. 590 (Zpzst, v. Labbe, tom. vi. p. 
626, ed. Venet. 1753). 

Pope Gregory the Great, A.D. 604 (᾽ς. lib. v. ep. xx. 
tom. ii. p. 748, ed. Bened. Paris, 1705). 

Stephen, Bishop of Dori, A.D. 649 (in a Libellus supplex, 
recorded in the Acts of a Council held under Pope Martin I. 
Labbe, vii. p. 107, Venet.). 

Pope Vitalian, A.D. 669 (Epis¢. i. Labbe, vii. p. 460). 

General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680, in which 
the letter of Pope Agatho, who in like manner applies the 
text to the infallible faith of St. Peter and his successors, 
was received with acclamations by the assembled Fathers 


(Labbe, vii. pp. 659, 662, ed. Venet. 1729). 


4. Pastor of the Lord’s Flock—Intrusted with the Flock— 
Shepherd of the Church—Universal Pastor—Vicar of Christ 
—To Whom He committed the Presidency over His Sheep and 
over the Universal Church, &c. (in reference to John xxi. 
15-17). 

Origen :—“ When THE CHIEF AUTHORITY AS REGARDS 
FEEDING THE SHEEP was delivered to Peter, and upon him 
as on the earth the Church was founded,” &c. (Petro cum 
summa rerum de pascendis ovibus traderetur, et super ipsum 


40 St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 


velut super terram, fundaretur ecclesia, &c. Lib. v. in Epist. 
ad Rom. n. 10, tom. iv. p. 568). 

St. Cyprian :—“ Peter, TO WHOM THE LORD COMMENDS 
HIS SHEEP TO BE FED AND GUARDED” (Petrus, cui oves 
suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat. De Habitu 
Virginum, n. 10, ed. Goldhorn). ‘“ Upon that one He builds 
His Church, and TO HIM HE ASSIGNS HIS SHEEP TO BE 
FED. And although to all the Apostles, after His resurrec- 
tion, He gives an equal power, and says: ‘As the Father 
hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted ; and whose 
sins ye retain, they are retained ;* yet, IN ORDER TO MANI- 
FEST UNITY, He has, by His own authority, so disposed the 
origin of that same unity as that it BEGINS FROM ONE. 
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, 
endowed with an equal fellowship both of honour and power ; 
but the commencement proceeds from unity, and THE 
PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER, that the Church of Christ 
may be set forth as one, and the Chair as one. .. . He who 
holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he 
holds the faith? He who strives against and resists the 
Church, he who abandons the Chair of Peter, upon whom 
the Church was founded, does he feel confident that he is 
within the Church?” (Super illum unum edificat Ecclesiam 
suam, et illi pascendas mandat oves suas}... ut unitatem 

1 This, and the following clauses printed in italics have been considered by 
some Critics to be interpolations. They were omitted in the editions of ERASMUS 
(1520), FELL (1682), and BALUZIUS ; but retained in those of PAUL MANUTIUS 
(1563), PAMELIUS (1568), RIGALTIUS (1648), Dom PRUD. MARANUS (1726), 
and others. They are undoubtedly wanting in many MSS.; but, on the other 
hand : 1. They were quoted as far back as the year 582 by Pelagius 11. in his 
second epistle to the Bishops of Istria, also in the Acts of Alexander III., and by 
Ivo of Chartres and Gratian (FREPPEL’s St. Cyprien, p. 279). In addition to the 
MSS. consulted by Manutius, Pamelius, and others, they are also found in the 
Vatican MS. of Cyprian’s works, in a Bavarian copy discovered by Gretzer, and 
in four ancient English MSS. mentioned by the Protestant editor Bishop Fell. 
2. By the admission of Protestant writers, such as NEANDER, the clauses 
referred to contain nothing that is not elsewhere taught by Cyprian in passages of 
undoubted authenticity; ¢.g., ‘‘ There is one Church and ONE CHAIR, FOUNDED 
BY THE VOICE OF THE LORD UPON A ROCK” (Z ist. 43, n. 5); “‘ Peter, whom 


the Lord CHOSE AS CHIEF, AND UPON WHOM HE BUILT HIs CHURCH, when 
Paul afterwards disputed with him regarding circumcision, did not claim any- 


Sz. Peter the Chief Pastor. 41 


manifestaret, unitatis originem ab uno incipientem sua auc- 
toritate disposuit, . . . exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, δ 
primatus Petro datur, ut una Ecclesia et Cathedra una mon- 
straretur. .. . Wanc Ecclesiz unitatem qui non tenet, tenere 
se fidem credit? Qui Ecclesie renititur et resistit, gut 
Cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est E cclesia, deserit, in 
Ecclesia se esse confidit? De Unitate Eccles. n. 4). 

St. Ephrem Syrus :—“ He was the prince of the Apostles, 
and had received the keys, and was accounted THE SHEP- 
HERD OF THE FLOCK” (Tom. ii. Syr. lvi. Adv. Her.). 

St. Ambrose :—“ Set over the Church . . . THE PASTOR 
OF THE LORD’s FLOCK” (Pastor dominici oregis. Jn Ps. 
xliii, n. 40). “Him whom, as He is about to be raised to 


thing to himself insolently or assume anything arrogantly, SO AS TO SAY THAT HE 
HELD THE PRIMACY (ut diceret se primatum tenere, i.é., So as arrogantly to insist 
or fall back upon his supreme authority, when justly upbraided by St. Paul) > ...<. 
nor did he despise Paul,” &c. (Zfzst. 71, ad Quintum.); ‘* There is one Church, 
founded by the Lord UPON PETER, FOR THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF UNITY” 
(Epist. 70, ad Fan.) ; ‘THE CHAIR OF PETER AND THE RULING CHURCH 
(THE ROMAN), WHENCE THE UNITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD HAS ITS SOURCE 
(Epist. 55, a@ Cornel.). ‘This last passage is, as Neander observes, ** UNCON- 
TROVERTED ” (Bohn’s Weander, ν. i. p- 298), and is even stronger than those in 
the treatise De Unitate. It is admitted by MILMAN, also, that Cyprian ‘‘ assigned 
a kind of primacy to St. Peter, and acknowledged the hereditary descent of the 
Roman Bishops from the great Apostle” (Hist. of Latin Christ. Ὁ. ii. c. 4, vol. 
i. p. 238, ed. 1867). 3. The genuineness of the entire text, as maintained in 
the Benedictine edition, seems to be strongly confirmed by the very similar 
language regarding St. Peter’s “‘ Primacy” and “ Chair,” used by OPTATUS 
(De Sch. Don. ii. c. 3), JEROME (Zpist. ad Pap. Dam. et Adv. Fovinian, τι. 26), 
AucusTINE (/n Joan. Tract. 56, n. 1), De Bapt. cont. Donat. \. xi. n. 2; Ps. in 
Part. Donat.), and POPE GELASIUS, A.D. 492 (Epist. xiv.), all of whom seem to 
have had Cyprian’s words before their eyes. 4. If there had been any design 
to corrupt the text ‘‘in the interest of the Roman Church,” how is it that the 
passages on which Protestants insist, regarding the equality of the Apostles, were 
not omitted or altered? Lastly, It would be well for those Anglicans and Pro- 
testants who, on account of the paucity of existing MSS. containing them, 
reject the clauses referred to as evident interpolations, to explain on what prin- 
ciple they themselves receive certain controverted passages of the New Testament 
itself, e.g., verses 7 and 8 of the fifth chapter of St. Fohn’s Second Epistle, of which 
a Protestant writer says: ‘‘ Of all the ancient MSS. of this Epistle, which 
amount to 150, there have been found but five containing this passage, and these 
are of but questionable authority ” (Dr. PINNOCK’S Analysis of New Lest. Hist. 
4th edit. Cambridge, p. 91). Of the disputed passages in Cyprian this same 
writer observes, that ‘‘they are sazd ¢o have been interpolated by the Roman 
Church” (Anal. of Ecclesiast. Hist. Ῥ. 242); but he omits to state how many of 
the existing MSS. do or do not contain them. 


42 St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 


heaven, He was leaving to us, as it were, THE VICAR oF HIs 
LOVE. For thus you have it: ‘Simon, son of John, lovest 
thou ποῦ... Feed My sheep. . . . Because he alone out of 
all makes this profession (of love), he is PREFERRED BEFORE 
ALL. .. . And now he is not ordered, as at first, to ‘ feed 
His lambs,’ . . . but ‘ His sheep, THAT THE MORE PERFECT 
MIGHT GOVERN THE MORE PERFECT” (Quem elevandus in 
ceelum amoris sui velut vicarium relinquebat .. . omnibus 
antefertur . . . perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret. 17 
Lucam, lib. x. p. 1848, tom. ii.). 

St. Epiphanius :—“ He heard from that same God, ‘ Peter, 
feed My lambs ; TO HIM WAS INTRUSTED THE FLOCK ; he 
leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master ” 
(ὁ πεπιστευμενὺς THY ποιμνην" ὁ κάλως οδηγων ev Ty δυναμει του 
ιἰδιου δεσποτου. Tom. ii. Jn Anchorat. ἢ. 9). 

St. Chrysostom :—“ And why, then, passing by the 
others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 
xxi. 15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the 
mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this 
account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the 
others. And withal,to show him that he must thenceforward 
have confidence, as the denial was done away with, HE PUTS 
INTO HIS HANDS THE PRESIDENCY OVER THE BRETHREN. 
And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him 
with what had past, but says, ‘If thou lovest Me, PRESIDE 
OVER THE BRETHREN, . . . and the third time He gives him 
the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets THE 
PRESIDENCY OVER HIS OWN SHEEP. And if any one should 
say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem ? 
This I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) 
TEACHER, not of that throne, but OF THE WORLD” (Kaz τι 
δηποτε Tous αλλους παραδραμὼν τουτῳ περι τουτων διαλεγεται ; 
εκκρίτος ἣν τῶν «αποστολων Kat στομα των μαθητων, Kat κορυφὴ 
του yopov ... εγχειριζεται THY προστασιαν τῶν αδέλφων . .. 
Neyer δὲ oTe εἰ φίλεις pe προΐστασο τῶν αδέλφων. . . . Eu δε 
λεγο τις, πὼς OUV ὁ Ιακωβος τον θρονον ἔλαβε των Ἱεροσολυμων ; 
EKELVO αν εὐποιμι, OTL TOUTOV οὐκ τοῦ θρονου, αλλα TNS OLKOUPEVNS 
EXELPOTOVNTE διδασκαλον. In Foan. Hom. \xxxviii. n. 1, tom. 


St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 43 


viii. pp. 526, 7). “INTRUSTED BY CHRIST WITH THE FLOCK’ 
(ὡς επίστευθεις παρα του Χριστου την ποιμνην, Kab ὡς του χορου 
πρωτος. Tom. ix. Hom. iii. in Act. p. 24). ‘ Why did He 
shed His blood? That He might gain possession of those 
sheep which He INTRUSTED TO PETER AND TO HIS SUC- 
CESSORS” (a [τα mpoBata] τῳ Π]ετρῳ καὶ τοις μετ᾽ EKELVOV ενε- 
χειρισεν. De Sacerdot. lib. 11. c. 1, p. 371). 

St. Asterius :—“ He INTRUSTS TO THIS MAN THE UNI- 
VERSAL AND CECUMENICAL CHURCH, after having thrice 
asked him ‘Lovest thou me?’... Peter RECEIVED THE 
WORLD IN CHARGE; AS IT WERE FOR ONE FOLD, ONE 
SHEPHERD, having heard ‘ Feed My lambs;’ and THE LORD 
GAVE, WELL-NIGH IN HIS OWN STEAD, THAT MOST FAITH- 
FUL DISCIPLE TO THE PROSELYTES AS A FATHER, AND 
PASTOR, AND INSTRUCTOR” (τὴν καθολου και οἰκουμενικὴν 
εκκλησιαν τουτῳ τῳ ανδρι παρατιθεται, τρυτον αὐτου πυθομενος 
το Φιλεις με; . - - ἔλαβεν Tov κοσμον εἰς επιμελειαν, ὡς μίαν 
ἀγέλην, εἷς ποιμὴν, ακουσας Βοσκε τα αρνια μου" Kat σχεδὸν 
av@’ ἑαυτου tov πίστοτατον μαθητὴν εδωκεν ὁ κυρίος τοῖς 
προσηλύτοις πατερα, καὶ νομεᾶ, Καὶ παιδευτην. Hom. viii. 172 
SS. Pet. εἰ Paul. tom. i. p. 147, ed. Combefis; et p. 281, ed. 
Migne). 

Ambrosiaster :—“ After the Saviour all were included in 
Peter ; for HE CONSTITUTED HIM TO BE THEIR HEAD, THAT 
HE MIGHT BE THE SHEPHERD OF THE LORD'S FLOCK.... 
And He says to Peter, ‘Behold, Satan hath desired to have 
you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for 
thee, that thy faith fail not ; and thou, being once converted, 
confirm thy brethren.’ What doubt is there? He prayed 
for Peter, but prayed not for James and John, not to mention 
the others. It is manifest that all are included ; for, praying 
for Peter, He is seen to have prayed for all; fora people is 
ever blamed or praised in him that is set over it” (Quest. 
75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August. tom. iii. 2894). 

St. Augustine :—“I am held in the communion of the 
Catholic Church by . . . the succession of priests from the 
very Chair of the Apostle Peter, TO WHOM THE LORD, AFTER 
HIS RESURRECTION, COMMITTED HIS SHEEP TO BE FED, 


44 St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 


even to the present Episcopate” (Tenet ab ipsa sede Petri 
Apostoli, cui pascendas oves post resurrectionem Dominus 
commendavit usque ad presentem Episcopatum, successio 
sacerdotum. Tom. viii. Cont, £pzst. Manich. Fund. τ. 5, Ῥ. 
269). “ Peter was made THE*PASTOR OF THE CHURCH, as 
Moses was made the ruler of the Jewish people” (Petrus 
factus est pastor ecclesiz, sicut Moyses . . . factus est rector 
illius synagoge. Cont. Faustum, lib. xxii. c. 70). “ Peter, 
ΤῸ WHOM HE COMMENDED HIs SHEEP AS ANOTHER SELF, 
He wished to make one with Himself, that so He might 
commend the sheep to him; that he might be THE HEAD, 
he bear the figure of the Body—that is, of the Church—and 
as husband and wife be two in one flesh” (Tom. v. Sera. 
xlvi. ἢ. 30, p. 345). “The Lord commended to Peter him- 
self His sheep to be fed. But not he alone amongst the 
disciples merited to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when 
Christ speaks to one, unity is commended, and TO PETER 
PRIMARILY, BECAUSE AMONG THE APOSTLES PETER IS THE 
FIRST” (Serm. ccxcv. in Nat. Pet. et Paul. n. 4, p- 1757): 

St Boniface,.Pope, A.D. 419 :—" Peter, . . . THE PER- 
PETUAL SHEPHERD OF THE LORD'S SHEEP, in whom we read 
that the foundation of the Universal Church was laid” (Qui 
pastor dominicarum ovium est perpetuus constitutus, . - - in 
quo universalis ecclesie positum legimus fundamentum. 
Epist. v. Rufo, Thess. Ep. τ. τ, Galland, ix. p. 50). 

St Maximus of Turin :—“Peter found a grace oreater 
than that which he had lost. AS A GOOD SHEPHERD, HE 
RECEIVED THE FLOCK TO GUARD, that he, who before had 
been weak in his own case, might become a support to all 

and a foundation to the rest by stability of faith” 
(Tanquam bonus pastor tuendum gregem accepit, ut fieret 
omnibus fundamentum, et . . . ceteros fidei stabilitate 
fundaret. Denique pro soliditate devotionis ecclestarum petra 
dicitur, &c. Hom. iv. De Pet. Apost. Bibl. Max. Pat. vi. 24). 

St. Cyril of Alexandria :—“ Over the Church He SETS 
PETER AS SHEPHERD” (Juz Matz. xvi. tom. v. p. 25). 

St. Leo the Great :—“To whom, while the power of 
binding and loosing was given beyond the rest, yet was THE 


St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 45 


CARE OF FEEDING THE SHEEP MORE SPECIALLY ASSIGNED. 
To whom whoso thinks that THE PRIMACY is to be denied, 
he can in no wise lessen the dignity of Peter, but, puffed up 
by the spirit of his own pride, he sinks himself down into 
hell” (Cui cum prez ceteris solvendi et ligandi tradita sit 
potestas, pascendarum tamen ovium cura specialius mandata 
est. Cui quisquis principatum estimat denegandum, illius 
quidem nullo modo potest minuere dignitatem: sed inflatus 
spiritu superbiz sux semetipsum in inferna demergit. vst. 
x. ad Episc. per Prov. Vienn. ¢. 2. “TO THE BLESSED PETER 
ABOVE THE OTHERS, after the keys of the kingdom, IS THE 
CARE OF THE LORD’S FOLD ASSIGNED ” (Beato Apostolo 
Petro supra ceteros, post regni claves, ovilis Dominici cura 
mandatur. Tom. i. Serm, \xxiii. de Ascen. Dom. c. 2, p. 291, 
ed. Ball.) “Whereas Peter alone received many things, 
nothing passed unto any one else without his participation 
ἢ it. OUT OF THE WHOLE WORLD THE ONE PETER IS 
CHOSEN TO BE SET OVER BOTH THE CALLING OF THE 
NATIONS, AND OVER ALL THE APOSTLES, AND ALL THE 
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH; that although in the people 
of God there be many priests and many shepherds, PETER 
MAY RULE ALL AS MADE HIS, WHOM CHRIST ALSO RULES 
BY SUPREME HEADSHIP” (De toto mundo unus eligitur 
Petrus, qui et universarum gentium vocationi, et omnibus 
Apostolis cunctisque Ecclesie patribus przponatur: ut 
quamvis in populo Dei multi sacerdotes multique pastores, 
omnes tamen proprie regat Petrus, quos principaliter regit 
et Christus. Serm. iv. 272 Natal. Ora. c. τ, tom. i. p. 14). 

st. Eucherius of Lyons :—“ First He committed to him 
the lambs, then the sheep; because He constituted him not 
only shepherd, but THE SHEPHERD OF SHEPHERDS. There- 
fore, Peter feeds the lambs, he feeds also the sheep; he 
feeds the offspring, he feeds also the mothers; HE RULES 
BOTH SUBJECTS AND PRELATES. HE IS THE SHEPHERD, 
THEREFORE, OF ALL, BECAUSE, BESIDES LAMBS AND SHEEP, 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CHURCH” (Non solum pas- 
torem, sed pastorum pastorem eum constituit. ... Regit 
et subditos et prelatos. Omnium igitur pastor est, quia 


46 St. Peter the Chief Pastor. 


preter agnos et oves in Ecclesia nihil est. Serm. de Natal. 
SS. Apost. Petri et Pault). 

St. Peter Chrysologus, A.D. 440:—“TO PETER HE 
COMMENDS HIs SHEEP, IN HIS STEAD, TO BE FED” (Vice 
sua, ut pasceret, commendat. Serm. vi. in Ps. xcix. Bibl. 
Max. Pat. vii. 10). 

Arnobius Junior, A.D. 440:—“ Behold, that succour is 
given to a penitent Apostle, who is THE BISHOP OF BISHOPS 
(qui est episcopus episcoporum), and a greater rank? is re- 
stored to him now weeping than was taken from Him 
when he ‘denied’ That I may prove this, I show that NO 
OTHER APOSTLE RECEIVED THE NAME OF SHEPHERD. 
For the Lord Jesus alone said, ‘I am the Good Shepherd ;’ 
and again, ‘My sheep,’ He says, ‘ Follow Me.’ THIS HOLY 
NAME, THEREFORE, AND THE POWER OF THE SAME NAME, 
He, after the resurrection, conceded to the penitent PETER; 
and the Denied bestowed on him who denied Him THIS 
POWER WHICH HE ALONE HAD; that he might be proved 
not only to have recovered what he had lost, but also to 
have acquired even much more by being penitent than he 
had lost by denying” (Hoc ergo sanctum nomen, et ipsius 
nominis potestatem post resurrectionem suam Petro poeni- 
tenti concessit, &c. Com. in Ps. cxxxvili. tom. vill. B76. 
Max. Pat. Ὁ. 320). 

St. Simplicius, Pope, A.D. 468 :—“ Him ON WHOM THE 
LORD ENJOINED THE CARE OF ALL THE SHEEPFOLD ἡ (Cui 
Dominus totius curam ovilis injunxit, cui se usque ad finem 
seculi minime defuturum, cui portas inferi nunquam pre- 
valituras esse promisit. ist. iv. ad Basil August. Labbe, 
iv. p. 1071). 

St. Gelasius (v. supra, p. 39). 

St. Gregory the Great :—“By the voice of the Lord, 
THE CARE OF THE WHOLE CHURCH WAS COMMITTED TO 
PETER, THE HEAD OF ALL THE APOSTLES; for to him it 


1 St. Chrysostom says: * Peter so washed away that denial as 20 be even 
made the first Apostle, and to have the whole world committed to him” (ovrws 
απενιψατο τὴν apynow ekewny, ὡς καὶ Mpwros γενεσθαι των αποστολων, Kat THY 
οἰκουμενὴν εγχειριξθηναι ἀπασαν. Tom. i. Orat. vill. n. 3). 


St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 47 


was said, ‘Peter, lovest thon Me? Feed My sheep ’” 
(Liquet, quod voce Dominica sancto et omnium Aposto- 
lorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesia cura com- 
missa est, ipsi quippe dicitur, Pasce oves meas. Lib. iv. 
Epist. 32). 

St Columbanus, A.D. 580. The celebrated Irish Liturgy 
known as the Missal of St. Columbanus?! contains the 
following Collect in the Mass assigned for the Cathedra 
Sancti Petri:—“O God! who on this day DIDST GIVE TO 
St. PETER, AFTER THYSELF, THE HEADSHIP OF THE 
WHOLE CHURCH, we humbly pray Thee that, as Thou didst 
constitute him pastor for the safety of the flock, and that 
Thy sheep might be preserved from error, so now Thou 
mayest save us through his intercession ” (Deus, qui hodierna 
die B. Petrum post Te dedisti caput Ecclesiz. . . . Te sup- 
plices rogamus, ut qui dedisti pastorem, ne quid de ovibus 
perderes, et ut grex effugiat errores, &c. Museum Ttalicum, 
vol, i, p. 297, a D. J. Mabillon, Paris, 1724). 


s. The First? of the Apostles—TI. he Chosen One—The Head 
—The Chief—The Highest—The Leader—The Prince of the 
Apostles—To whom had been I untrusted the Government or 


Supremacy— Universal Bishop—Bishop of Bishops—Primate 


1 This Missal was discovered by the learned MABILLON at Bobbio, the MS. 
being then, as he declared, “‘more than a thousand fyears old” (AZus. /tal, 
vol. i. p. 275). For a full account of it, and proofs that both the Missal and the 
MS. itself are Zrish, see Dr. MorAn’s Essays on the Early Irish Church, 1864, 
PP- 95; 96, 275-295- 

2 Wherever the Apostles are enumerated in the Gospels, St. Peter is invari- 
ably xamed first. St. Matthew expressly calls him ‘* THE FIRST ” (x. 2), the same 
Greek word (mpwros) being rendered ‘‘CHIEF” in chap. xx. 27, and other pas- 
sages. Mr. Allies remarks: ‘‘ Now, that second and third do not follow, shows 
that ‘first’ is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus 
in heathen authors this word ‘first’ by itself indicates the more excellent in its 
kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, ‘ first friend of the king,’ ‘first of the 
singers,’ ‘the first priest,’ z.¢., the chief priest (Nehem. xii. 46; 2 Chron. xxvi. 
20). So our Lord: ‘ Whichever among you will be first’ (Matt. xx. 27); ‘ Bring 
forth the first robe’ (Luke xv. 22) ; and St. Paul: ‘ Sinners, of whom I am the 
first,’ ¢.¢., chief (1 Tim. i. 15). Thus ‘the first of the island’ (Acts xxviii. 7), 
means the chief magistrate ; and ‘ first’ generally, in Latin phraseology, the 
superior or prince.” —S¢ Peter, His Name and Office, p. 95, 2d edit. 


48 St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 


of all Bishops—Prince of the whole Church—In whom the 
Government and Headship of the Universal Church restde— 
Prince of the Princes—Prince of the Episcopal Crown, &¢., &¢. 
Who now and always Lives and Judges in his Successors— 
Always Presides in his own See, and shows the Truth of Faith 
to those seeking it—Whose Dignity fails not in an unworthy 
Heir—Who in all things Protects and has regard to the Heirs 
of his Administration, &e. 

St. Ignatius, A.D. 107 :—“ And when He came to PETER 
AND HIS COMPANY;! He said, ‘ Take, handle Me, and see 
that I am not an incorporeal demon’” (τοὺς περι ITerpov. 
Epist. ad Smyr. c. 3, et ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 36). 

Tertullian :—‘ It was His pleasure to communicate to 
THE MOST HIGHLY ESTEEMED OF HIs DISCIPLES, in a pecu- 
liar manner, a name (Peter) drawn from the figures of Him- 
self” (Carissimo discipulorum de fisuris suis peculiariter 
nomen communicare. Adv. Mareton. lib. iv. c. 13). 

Origen :—“ Peter, THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES” (/7 
Lucam, Hom. xvii. tom. iii. p, 953). “MORE HONOURED 
THAN THE REST” (των λοίπων τιμίωτερος. Tom. ΧΧΧΙΪ. 27 
Joann, τι. 5, tom. iv. Pp. 413). On the words in Matt. XVil. 
26 he remarks, that the disciples “ considered that this was a 
very great favour to Peter on the part of Jesus, as having 
ADJUDGED HIM GREATER THAN THE OTHER DISCIPLES ” 
(κριναντος αὐτον μείζονα των λοίπὼν γνωρίμων. Tom, xiii. tit 
Matt. n. 14, tom. iii. p. 588). 


1 Comp. Acts xiii. 13, of περι τον Παυλον, “" Paul and his company.” The 
expression of St. Ignatius is similar to those so frequently used in the Gospels and 
Acts :—‘‘ Simon and they that were with him” (Mark i. 36) ; “ Peter and they 
that were with him” (Luke viii. 45, ix. 32); ‘* Peter standing up with the 
eleven” (Acts ii. 14); “ Peter and the other Apostles” (ii. 37); “ Peter and the 
Apostles” (v. 29. See also Mark xvi. 7; Acts i, 15); and evidently indicates 
the superior dignity and authority of St. Peter. Compare the following :— 
“ David and they that were with him” (Luke vi. 3; Matt. xii. 3); “‘ He ordained 
twelve, that they should be with Him” (Matt. iii. 14) ; ‘‘ Them that had deen with 
Him” (xvi. 10; comp. Acts iv. 13, 14). 

2 St. Chrysostom, on the same words, “" Give unto them (the tribute) for 
Me and for thee,” says :—‘‘ Dost thou see the exceeding greatness of the honour? 
See also the self-command of Peter’s mind, For Mark, the follower of this 
Apostle, does not appear to have written down this point, because it pointed out 


St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 49 


The Clementines :—“ Set apart to be the foundation of 
the Church . . . THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES” (τῆς εκκλη- 
σιας θεμέλιος εἰναι ορίισθεις, . . . ὁ τῶν αποστολων πρῶτος. 
Epist. Clem. ad Jacob. Galland, tom. ii, Ὁ. 611). 

St. Cyprian :—“ Peter, whom the Lord chose to be THE 
FIRST or CHIEF” (Quem Dominus primum elegit. Epzst. 
Ιχχὶ. ad Quintum). “THE PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER” 
(Primatus Petro datur. De Unitate Eccles.). 

Auctor de Rebaptismate, a.D. 254:— “Peter, THE 
LEADER AND PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES” (Auct. de Rebaft. 
n. 10, Galland, ii. p. 366). 

St. Peter of Alexandria, A.D. 306:—“ Peter, SET ABOVE 
THE APOSTLES” (6 mpoxpitos των αποστόολων ITerpos. 
Canon. ix. Galland, iv. p. 98). 

Eusebius :—‘ THAT POWERFUL AND GREAT ONE OF THE 
APOSTLES, who, on account of his excellence, was THE 
LEADER OF ALL THE REST” (Tov καρτερὸν καὶ peyav τῶν 
αποστολων, . . » τῶν λοίπων ἅπαντων προηΎορον. Hist. Eccles. 
lib. ii. c. 14). “THE VERY HEAD OF THE APOSTLES ” (αὖτος 
τε ὁ κορυφαίος των αποστολων Iletpos. Com. in Ps. Ixviii. 9, 
tom. v. p. 737). “SET ABOVE ALL THE REST” (ὁ παντων 
αὐτων προκεκριμενος. Demonstrat. Evang. lib: ἃ GP 
“ Peter, that CORYPHAUS, after having first founded the 
Church at Antiochy»went away to Rome preaching the 
Gospel ; and he also, after the Church in Antioch, presided 
over that of Rome until his death” (Chron. ad Aun. 44, tom. 
i. p. 539, Migne). 

St. Anthony, A.D. 330:— “THE PRINCE OF THE 
AposTLEs” (Epist. xvii. Galland, iv. p. 687). 

St. James of Nisibis: — “Simon, THE HEAD OF THE 
APOSTLES ” (Orat. vii. de Paenitent. n. 6, Galland, v. p. 57). 


the great honour paid to him (Peter) ; but whilst he also wrote of the denial, he 
has passed over in silence the things that made him illustrious ; his Master, per- 
haps, entreating him not to mention the great things about himself” (Hom. 58, 
in Matt. n. 2). Busebius makes a similar remark in. regard to St. Mark’s 
omission of the words recorded in Matt. xvi. 18 :—“* Such great things having 
been said to Peter, Mark mentions nothing of them; neither did Peter name 
them in his discourses. Probably, therefore, Peter thought it right to pass these 
things in silence, and Mark consequently omits them ; but, as regards his denial, 
he published it to all men” (Demonstr. Evang. iii. 4). 
D 


50 St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 


St. Hilary: — “THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLESHIP Ξ 
(Apostolattis princeps. Jn Matt. vii. 6, p. 701). 

S+ Athanasius :—“ THE CHIEF, Peter” (Juv Ps. xv. 8, 
tom. iii. p. 106, Migne). 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem :—“ Peter, THE CHIEFEST AND 
FOREMOST LEADER OF THE APOSTLES ” (Πετρος ὁ κορυφαι- 
οτατος καὶ TpWTOTTATNS τῶν αποστολων. Catech. Myst. ii. n. 
19, p. 31,ed. Ben. Migne). “ THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES 
AND CHIEF HERALD OF THE CHURCH” (Ὁ πρωτοστατὴς Tov 
αποστολων, καὶ της εκκλησιας κορυφαῖος KnpUt Catech. xi. n. 3). 

St. Optatus of Milevis: — “THE HEAD OF ALL THE 
AposTLEs ” (Omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus. De 
Schism. Donat. \ib. ii. c. 2, p. 76, ed. Hurter). “ PETER, OUR 
PRINCE” (Claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum, prin- 
cipem scilicet nostrum. Jd. c. 4, p. 80). “ For the good of 
unity the blessed Peter deserved to be PREFERRED TO ALL 
THE APOSTLES” (Bono unitatis . . . preferri Apostolis 
omnibus meruit. Lib. vii. c. 3, p. 243). ‘“ THE HEAD OF THE 
APOSTLES” (Caput apostolorum. 10. p, 245). 

St. Ephrem Syrus:—“ THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES ” 
(Tom. ii. Syr. lvi. Adv. Her. p. 559). “THE CHIEF OF THE 
APOSTLES” (Tom. ii. Gr. in Adv. Dom. p. 203). “O thou 
blessed one, that obtainedst the place of THE HEAD and of 
the tongue, in the body of thy brethren” (Bzd/. Orient. tom. 
i. p. 95, Asseman.). 

St. Gregory Nyssen :—‘* THE LEADER AND CORYPHZUS 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHOIR, . . . THE HEAD OF THE 
APOSTLES” (ὁ πρωτοστατης καὶ Kopupatos της αποστολίκης 
χορείας, . "- ἡ κεφαλὴ των αποστολων. Alt. Orat. de 3. 
Steph. tom. iii. p. 730, 4). 

St. Gregory Nazianzen :—“ Peter, THE CHIEF OF THE 
DISCIPLES” (IIetpos μαθητων axpos. Sect. i. Poem. de Seipso, 
tom. iii. p. 1182). “ HAD INTRUSTED TO HIM THE VERY 
GREATEST THINGS” (τα μεγιστα. Orat. xxviii. ἢ. 19, p. 510). 
“ THE MOST HONOURED OF THE DISCIPLES” (Tov τιμιωτατον 
των μαθητων. Orat. xix. ἢ. 13, tom. i. p. 372). 

St. Macarius of Egypt, A.D. 371:—“ THE CHIEF, Peter” 
(τῳ κορυφαιῳ Πετρῳ. De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180, Galland, vil. 


St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 51 


p. 180). “Moses was succeeded by Peter," who HAD COM- 
MITTED TO HIS HANDS THE NEW CHURCH OF CHRIST, 
AND THE TRUE PRIESTHOOD” (IIetpos Macea διεδεξατο, 
την Kawnv εκκλησιαν Χριστου καὶ τὴν αληθινην ιἑροσυνην 
εγχειρίσθεις. Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101). 

St. Basil the Great:—“ Peter, who was PREFERRED 
BEFORE ALL THE APOSTLES” (ὁ paxapios Πετρος, ὁ παντων 
μεν τῶν μαθητων προκρίθεις, μονος de πλειον των ἄλλων μαρτυ- 
ρηθεις και μακαρισθεις. De Judicio Det, n. 7, tom. ili. p. 671). 

Faustinus, A.D. 383 :—‘ PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES” (De 
Trinitate, c. 5, n. 3, Galland, vii. p. 455). 

St. Epiphanius :—“ Andrew was the first to meet Christ, 
inasmuch as Peter was the younger in age. But... Peter 
became a leader to his own brother. And God sees the dis- 
positions of the heart, and knowing who is worthy to be 
appointed unto presidency, He also CHOSE PETER TO BE 
THE LEADER OF HIS DISCIPLES, as in every way has been 
clearly shown” (γυγνωσκων τις ev πρωτοῖς ἄξιος ταττεσθαι, καὶ 
εξελεέλεξατο τον Πετρον apynyov ewvat των avtov μαθητων. Adv. 
Her. [51] n. 17, p. 440). “ THE VERY CHIEF OF THE 
APOSTLES” (ὁ κορυφαίοτατος τῶν atoctohwv. Adv. Her. 
[59] n. 7, tom. ii. p. 500) 

Ambrosiaster :—“ Andrew followed the Saviour before 
Peter; and yet not Andrew, but PETER OBTAINED THE 
PRIMACY” (Prior sequutus est Andreas Salvatorem quam 
Petrus ; et tamen primatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus. 
Comment. in Epist. ad Cor. xii. 12, ed. Bened. Op. Ambros. 
Migne, p. 205). 

St. Jerome :—“ One is chosen out of the twelve, in order 
that, A HEAD being appointed, the occasion of schism 
might be removed” (Inter duodecim unus eligitur ut, capite 
constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio. Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. 


1 In Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, an account is given of the 
gilded glasses, &c., discovered in the Catacombs at Rome, in some of which St. 
Peter is represented under the type of Moses (Book iv. ch. vii., and the Plates in 
p. 287). See also Martigny’s Dictionnaire des Antiquités Chrétiennes, Paris, 
1865, p. 540, 1, and p. 412. ST. AUGUSTINE says: ‘‘ Petrus... factus est 
pastor ecclesiz, sicut Moyses ... factus est rector illius synagoge.” Cont. 
Faustum, lib. xxii. c. 1xx. 


2 St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 


n. 26, tom. ii. p. 279). “THE PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES” 
(Princeps Apostolorum. fist. cxii. ad August. n. 6, tom. i. 
p. 740; Dial. adv. Pelag. tom. ii. p. 707; In Epist. ad Galat. 
c. 1, tom. vii. p. 373; ὅς). “The Apostle Peter, the first 
HIGH-PRIEST OF THE CHRISTIANS, when he had first founded 
the Church at Antioch, proceeds to Rome, where preaching 
the Gospel, he continues for twenty-five years Bishop of that 
city” (Pontifex Christianorum. Chron. ad Ann. 43, tom. Vii. 
p. 578. Comp. Catal. Script. Eccles.). 

St. Augustine :—‘“ Who can be ignorant that the most 
blessed Peter is THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES ?” (Quis enim 
nesciat primum Apostolorum esse beatissimum Petrum ?” 
Tract. ἵνὶ. tn Joan, n. 1, Ὁ. 2218, tom. iii.). “ HOLDING THE 
PRINCIPALITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP. ... IN THE ORDER 
oF APOSTLES THE FIRST AND THE PRINCIPAL” (Serm. 
lxxvi. tom. v. pp. 595-597). “ IN WHOM THE PRIMACY OF THE 
APOSTLES IS PRE-EMINENT BY SO EXCELLENT A GRACE. 
_. . Who knows not that that PRINCIPALITY OF THE APOS- 
TOLATE is to be preferred before any Episcopate whatever ? 
_ . . The grace of the chairs (of Peter and of Cyprian) is diffe- 
rent ” (Petrum in quo primatus Apostolorum tam excellenti 
cratia preeminet. . . . Quis enim nescit illum Apostolatus 
principatum cuilibet episcopatul preferendum?  Distat 
cathedrarum gratia. De Bapt. cont. Donat. \ib. 11. n. 2, tom. 
ix. p. 181). See numerous other passages in Waterworth’'s 
Faith of Catholics, vol. ii. p. 42. 

St. Asterius :—‘ THE FIRST DISCIPLE, AND GREATER 
THAN THE BRETHREN” (πρωτὸος μαθητης καὶ μειζων τῶν 
αδελφων. Hom. viii. in SS. Pet. et Paul. p. 274, Migne). 
“ Bléssed indeed also was the great John, who ‘ reposed on 
the Lord’s breast ;’ great, too, was-James, as being called 
‘the son of thunder ;’ illustrious was Philip; but yet they 
ALL MUST YIELD TO PETER, AND CONFESS THAT THEY 
HOLD THE SECOND PLACE, WHEN THE COMPARISON OF 
GIFTS DECIDES ON THE ONE HONOURED ABOVE THE REST” 


(arXX’ ομως of παντες ὑποχωρειτωσαν ετρῳ καὶ Sevtepeverv 


ὁμολογειτωσαν, οταν ἡ των χαρισματων συγκρισις δοκιμαξῃ τον 
προτιμοτερον. Jb. p. 277). 


St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 53 


St. Chrysostom :—“Peter, THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES, 


THE FIRST IN THE CHURCH” (ἡ κορυφὴ τῶν αποςτολῶν, ὁ 
πρωτος ev TH ἐκκλησια, Lom. ii. Hom. iii. de Panttent. τι. 4, Ῥ- 


300). “Peter it was TO WHOM HAD BEEN INTRUSTED THE 
GOVERNMENT” (την apyny εγκεχειρισάμενος. Tom. ix. Hom. 
xxxiii. in Act. n. 2). “THE CHIEF” (op κορυφαίον. [17 
1 Cor.ix. 5, Hom. xxi.n. 2). “He intrusted to his hands THE. 
PRIMACY OVER THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH” (την επιστασιαν 
της OLKOUMEVLKNS EKKANTLAS ενεχείρίσε. Hom. ν. de Penttent. 
n. 2, tom. ii p. 311). On 1 Cor. i. 12 he says: “ Not 
honouring himself before Peter, has he set him last, but 
preferring Peter even greatly before himself. For he has 
arranged his statement on an ascending scale” (Hom. 111. 17} 
1 Cor. tom. x. p. 16). See also passages cited in pp. 22, 42. 

General Council of Ephesus :—“ The blessed Peter, THE 
HEAD OF THE WHOLE FAITH, AND EVEN OF THE APOSTLES” 
(ἡ Kepary ὅλης της πίστεως, ἡ καὶ TOV αποστολων ὁ μακαρίος 
IIerpos. Aczé. ii. tom. iii. p. 619, Labbe). “ THE PRINCE 
AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES” (0 εξαρχος καὶ κεφαλὴ TOV 
αποστολων. Act. iii. p. 625). 

Prudentius, A.D. 405:—“ THE HIGHEST DISCIPLE OF 
Gop” (Summus Dei discipulus. Cont. Symmachum, lib. 11. 
Galland, viii. p. 509). “POSSESSING THE FIRST CHAIR” 
(Cathedram possidens primam. Hym. ii. i S. Laurent. 
p. 440). 

St. Innocent I., Pope, A.D. 410 :—“Peter, THROUGH 
WHOM BOTH THE APOSTOLATE AND EPISCOPATE TOOK ITS 
BEGINNING IN CHRIST” (Petrus, per quem et apostolatus et 
episcopatus in Christo coepit exordium. 2:51. ii. ad Victrie. 
n. 2, Ὁ. 546, Galland, viii... “ FROM WHOM THE EPISCOPATE 
ITSELF, AND THE WHOLE AUTHORITY OF THIS NAME, HAS 
SPRUNG” (A quo ipse episcopatus et tota auctoritas nominis 
hujus emersit. Zpzst. xxix. ad Concil. Carth. n. 1, p. 599). 
« As often as a principle of faith is ventilated, Iam of opinion 
that all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought not to refer 
save to Peter, that is, to THE AUTHOR OF THEIR NAME AND 
DIGNITY” (Prasertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror 


54 St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. 


omnes fratres et co-episcopos nostros nonnisi ad Petrum, 2.6. 
sui nominis et honoris auctorem referre debere. List, xxx. 
ad Concil. Milev. n. 1, p. 602). 

St. Boniface, Pope :—‘“ Peter, TO WHOM THE HIGHEST 
PLACE OF THE PRIESTHOOD was granted by the voice of the 
Lord” (Cui arx sacerdotii Dominica voce concessa est. 
Epist. iv. Rufo,n. τ, Galland, ix. p. 47). “ The institution of 
the universal nascent Church took its beginning from the 
honour of blessed Peter, IN WHOM ITS GOVERNMENT AND 
HEADSHIP RESIDE” (Institutio universalis nascentis Ecclesiz 
de beati Petri sumpsit honore principium, in quo regimen 
ejus et summa consistit. Zpist. xiv. Rufo, n. 1, p. 57). 

St. Cyril of Alexandria :—“ Peter, SET OVER THE HOLY 
DISCIPLES” (των ayiwv προεκκείμενος μαθητων) ; “THE PRINCE 
OF THE HOLY DISCIPLES” (ὁ τῶν αγιων μαθητων προκριτος 
Πετρος); “ PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES ;” “ THE CORYPHAUS,” 
&e., ἄς. (In Foan. lib. ix. p. 924, tom. vi.; 16. lib. xii. p. 
1064; Thesaurus, p. 340, tom. viii.; Cont. Fulian. lib. ix. 
p. 325, tom. 1x.). 

Theodoret :—“ That Divine CORYPHZUS OF THE APOS- 
TLES” (Jn Ps. ii. p. 616, tom. i. ed. Scholz). “THE FIRST 
OF THE APOSTLES” (Hist. Relig. c. 2, p. 1127, tom. iii. ; 
et alibi passim). On 1 Galat. i. 18 he says: “He (Paul) 
renders due honour to THE HEAD” (τὴν πρέπουσαν atrovepet 
τῳ κορυφαιίῳ τιμην. Comment. in loc. tom. iii. p. 365). 

St. Proclus, A.D. 438 :—‘ THE HEAD OF THE DISCIPLES 
AND THE ONE SET OVER THE APOSTLES” (ὦ των μαθητων 
κορυφαιε, Kat πρωτοστατα τῶν atootodwv.' Orat. Vili. 27 
Transfig. Dom. n. 2, Ὁ. 650, Galland, ix.). 

St. Leo the Great :—“ Not only the prelate of this See 
(Rome), but THE PRIMATE OF ALL BISHOPS” (Omnium epis- 
coporum primatem. Serm. iii, de Natal. Ord.c. 4). “THE 
PRINCE OF THE WHOLE CHURCH” (Totius Ecclesiz prin- 
cipem. Serm.iv.c.4). “Our care is extended throughout all 
the Churches,—this being required of us by the Lord, who 


1 On the titles given to St. Peter in the ancient Greek and Syriac Liturgies, 
vide Passaglia, De Prerog. S. Petri, p. 97, and the authors referred to by him. 


St. Peter Lives and Teaches in his Successors.. 55 


COMMITTED THE PRIMACY OF THE APOSTOLIC DIGNITY TO 
THE MOST BLESSED APOSTLE PETER, in reward of his faith, 
establishing the Universal Church on the solidity of him, the 
foundation” (Per omnes ecclesias cura nostra dirigitur, exi- 
gente hoc a nobis Domino, qui Apostolicee dignitatis, B. A. 
Petro primatum fidei suze remuneratione commisit, univer- 
salem ecclesiam in fundamenti ipsius soliditate constituens. 
Epist.v. ad Episc. Metrop. per [lliric, c. 2). 

Arnobius, Junior, calls Peter “THE BISHOP OF BISHOPS” 
(Episcopus episcoporum. Comment. in Ps. cxxxviil. p. 
320). 

St. Basil of Seleucia, A.D. 446:—“ Peter, THAT CORY- 
PHZUS OF THE APOSTLES, THAT RULER OF THE DISCIPLES 
OF CHRIST” (IIetpos των αποστολων ὁ κορυφαιος, ὁ των 
Χριστου μαθητων προστατης. Orat. xvi. p. 97, ap. Op. 5. 
Greg. Thaum. Paris, 1622). 

St. Nilus, a.D. 448 :—‘ THE HEAD OF THE CHOIR OF 
THE APOSTLES.” Lib. ii. Ἐ 21:2. cclxi. p. 252, Bib. M. xxvi.). 
“ Peter, who was FOREMOST IN THE CHOIR OF THE APOS- 
TLES, AND ALWAYS RULED AMONGST THEM” (Tract. ad 
Magnam. c. 8, p. 244). 

St. Avitus of Vienne, A.D. 494 :—“ Peter, THE HEAD OF 
THE APOSTLES ; that is, THE PRINCE OF THE PRINCES” 
(Fragm. i. Homil. Galland, x. p. 746). 

The Emperor Valentinian ITI., A.D. 455, calls Peter “THE 
PRINCE OF THE EPISCOPAL CROWN” (Princeps episcopal's 
corone. Jn Constit. de Epp. Ord. Vide Hallam’s Middle 
A ges, chap. vii. note). 

General Council of Ephésus: —“ WHO EVEN UNTIL 
NOW, AND ALWAYS, LIVES AND JUDGES IN HIS SUCCES- 
SORS” (οστις ews του νυν, καὶ aél, εν TOUS αὑτου διαδοχοις Kat 
fy, και δικαρει. Act. 111, p. 625). 

General Council of Chalcedon :—“ PETER HATH SPOKEN 
THROUGH LEO” (Sess. ii. p. 368). 

St. Peter Chrysologus, a.D. 440: — “We exhort you 
(Eutyches) that in all things you obediently attend to those 
things which have been written by the blessed Pope of the 


56 St. Peter Rules in his Own See. 


city of Rome; because BLESSED PETER, WHO LIVES AND 
PRESIDES IN HIS OWN SEE, GIVES THE TRUTH OF FAITH 
TO THOSE WHO SEEK IT” (Quoniam beatus Petrus, qui in 
propria sede vivit et prasidet, prastat quzrentibus fidei veri- 
tatem! Epist.ad Eutych. Proleg. Op. ed. Bacchin. 1758, p. 16). 

St. Xystus III., Pope, A.D. 434:—" The blessed Peter, 
IN HIS SUCCESSORS, HAS DELIVERED THAT WHICH HE 
RECEIVED. Who would be willing to separate himself from 
his doctrine, whom the Master Himself declared the first 
amongst the Apostles?” (Beatus Petrus in successoribus 
suis, quod accepit, hoc tradidit. Epist. vi. ad Foan. Antioch. 
n. 5, Ὁ. 529, Galland, ix.). 

St Leo the Great :—“ IN WHOSE SEE HIS OWN POWER 
LIVES AND AUTHORITY IS PRE-EMINENT ” (Cujus in Sede sua 
vivit potestas et excellit auctoritas. Serm. 111, in Natal. Ord. 
c. 3). ‘ WHOSE DIGNITY FAILS NOT EVEN IN AN UNWORTHY 
HEIR” (Cujus dignitas etiam in indigno hzrede non deficit. 
Ib. c. 4). “The blessed Peter CEASES NOT TO PRESIDE OVER 
HIS OWN SEE, and he enjoys never-ceasing fellowship with 
the everlasting Priest, Christ. FOR THAT SOLIDITY WHICH, 
WHEN HE WAS MADE THE ROCK, HE RECEIVED FROM CHRIST 
THE ROCK, TRANSMITS ITSELF TO HIS HEIRS” (Sedi suze 
preesse non desinit, et indificiens obtinet cum zterno sacer- 
dote consortium. Soliditas enim illa, quam de Petra Christo 
etiam ipse petra factus accepit, in suos quoque se transfudit 
heredes. Serm. v. in Natal. Ord. c. 4). 

Pope Siricius, A.D. 386 :—“I bear the burdens of all who 


1 * During the early progress of the Eutychian controversy, A.D. 449, a letter 
was addressed to Chrysologus, in common with the occupants of all the principal 
Sees of the West, by Eutyches himself, remonstrating against his condemnation 
by Flavian of Constantinople, and seeking to stir up all the Western Bishops 
against him, Chrysologus’s reply, which is extant among the Acts of the Council 
of Chalcedon (Labbe, Concil. iv. 35; cf. the notes of Binnius, 2d. 992), expresses 
the sorrow with which he had received Eutyches’s letter, and exhorts him to 
submit to the decision of the See of Peter, as declared in the Encyclic of Leo, since 
‘the blessed Peter lives and presides in his own Cathedra, and gives the true 
faith to all who seek for it.’”—Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat., vol. i. 
p. 518. 


St. Peter Rules in his Own See. 57 


are heavily laden; yea, rather in me that burden is borne by 
the blessed Apostle Peter, who, we trust, IN ALL THINGS 
PROTECTS AND HAS REGARD TO US WHO ARE THE 
HEIRS OF HIS GOVERNMENT” (Hec portat in nobis B. A. 
Petrus, qui nos in omnibus, ut confidimus, administrationis 


suz protegit et tuetur heredes. pzst. i. ad Himer. Larrac. 
Episc. Galland, vii. p. 533). 


THE SEE OF PETER. 


Il. 


. THE following is a brief synopsis of the titles and preroga- 
tives ascribed by the early Fathers and Councils to the 
ROMAN SEE or CHURCH :— 

1. The Apostolic See—The Apostolic Chair—The Apostolic 
Throne—The See, Chair, Throne, or Place of Peter—T he 
Rock of the Church—The See to which Heresy cannot gain 
access—Which has ever remained free from taint of Heresy— 
The See of Faith—In which the true Faith is never troubled— 
And Religion has always been preserved without spot, &¢., δα. 


Tertullian :—“ Run through the Apostolic Churches, IN 
WHICH THE VERY CHAIRS OF THE APOSTLES TO THIS VERY 
DAY PRESIDE OVER THEIR OWN PLACES ;* in which their own 
original letters are read, echoing the voice, and making 
present the face of each. Is Achaia near to thee? thou hast 
Corinth. .. . If thou art near to Italy, thou hast ROME,” 


1 EuseEsius testifies that ‘‘the throne of James” (IaxwBou θρονοϑὶ, ἕξ, his 
actual episcopal chair, was preserved even in his own time in Jerusalem, of 
which See that Apostle was the first Bishop (Ais? Eccles. vii. 19 and 32). For 
the history of the actual “ Chair,” or episcopal throne of St. Peter, the reader 
should consult Roma Sotterranea, p. 388 seg., Longmans, 1869. 

2 Tertullian passes rapidly over the other Churches founded by the Apostles 
(those of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus), but pauses to speak of 
the peculiar “ felicity” of the RomaN Church in possessing the full treasure of 
apostolic doctrine. Elsewhere, in answer to the objection of the heretics that 
some of these Churches had erred and had been reproved by the Apostles them- 
selves (Galat. iii. 1, 1. 6 ; 1 Cor. ili, I, 56.» viii. 2, xvi. 9), he says: ‘‘ When 
they object to us that the Churches were reproved, let them believe that they 


The See of Peter. 59 


whence we also have an authority at hand. THAT CHURCH 
HOW HAPPY! INTO WHICH THE APOSTLES POURED OUT 
ALL THEIR DOCTRINE WITH THEIR BLOOD; where Peter had 
a like passion with the Lord, where Paul is crowned with 
an end like the Baptist’s” (Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, 
apud quas ipse adhuc Cathedre Apostolorum suis locis 
presidentur. . . . Habes Romam... . Ista quam felix 
Ecclesia, cui totam do¢trinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo 
profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominice adzquatur, ubi 
Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur. De Prescript. Heret. c. 36). 

St. Cyprian says that Cornelius was chosen Bishop of 
Rome, and “mounted to the lofty summit of the priesthood, 

. when the place of Fabian, that is, when THE PLACE OF 
PETER, and the rank of the Sacerdotal Chair, was vacant a 
(Ad sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus 
adscendit . . . cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri et 
gradus cathedre sacerdotalis vacaret. Epist. 111. ed. Baluz. 
lv. c. 7, ed. Goldhorn, pp. 107, 108). He says of certain ἡ 
heretics: “After all this, they dare to sail, and to carry 
letters from schismatics and profane persons to THE CHAIR 
OF PETER, AND TO THE RULING CHURCH, WHENCE THE 
UNITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD HAS ITS SOURCE; nor do they 
consider that they are the same Romans—whose faith is 
praised in the preaching of the Apostle—TO WHOM FAITH- 
LESSNESS CANNOT HAVE ACCESS” (Navigare audent et ad 
Petri Cathedram2 atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde 


were amended ; and let them also recollect those concerning whose ‘faith,’ and 
‘ knowledge,’ and conversation, the Apostle ‘rejoices,’ and ‘ giveth God thanks’ 
(Rom. i. 8, xv. 14, xvi. 19), which, nevertheless, at this day join with those 
which were reproved in the privileges of one constituted body” (De Praser. — 
Heret. ς. 27). 

1 St. Cyprian says that Cornelius courageously accepted his election to the 
Pontificate, although the tyrannical Emperor Decius had declared that he 
‘WOULD RATHER SEE A NEW PRETENDER TO THE EMPIRE THAN A NEW 
BisHor oF RoME!” (Quanta in ipso suscepto episcopatu suo virtus, quantum 
robur animi, qualis firmitas fidei, . . . sedisse intrepidum Rome in sacerdotali : 
Cathedra eo tempore, cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus Dei fanda atque infanda 
comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret, levari adversus se 
cemulum principem, quam constitui Rome Dei sacerdotem! Jd. Zp. lv. n. 8, 
p. 108). 

3 «‘ The Roman Church,” says PALMER, an Anglican writer, ‘‘ was particularly 


60 The See of Peter. 


unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et profanis 
literas ferre, nec cogitare, 605 esse Romanos, quorum fides 
apostolo predicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non 
possit accessum. List. lv. ed. Baluz. lix. c. 19, p. 144, ed. 
Gold.). “He who abandons THE CHAIR OF PETER, does he 
feel confident that he is within the Church ?” (Qui cathedram 
Petri deserit, in Ecclesia se esse confidit? De Unzttate 
Eccles. ) : 

Firmilian, A.D. 257, says of Pope Stephen :—“ He prides 
himself on THE PLACE of his Episcopate, and contends that 
he HOLDS THE SUCCESSION OF PETER, upon whom the founda- 


honoured as having been presided over by St. Peter ; and was therefore, by many 
of the Fathers, called the See of Peter” (Treatise of the Church, vol. ii. part vil. 
c. 3, Ρ. 473, Oxon.). NEANDER, the Protestant historian of the Church, admits 
that ‘* Cyprian looked upon the Roman Church as really the Cathedra Petri, and 
as the representative of the outward unity of the Church” (Bohn’s Meander, vol. 
i. p. 299); and that “very early indeed” the Popes themselves assumed ‘‘ that 
to them, as successors of St. Peter, belonged a paramount authority in ecclesiastical 
disputes ; that the Cathedra Petri, as the source of Apostolic tradition, must take 
precedence of all other Ecclesia Apostolica,” &c. (1b. p. 298). He refers espe- 
cially to the conduct of Pope Victor, A.D. 190, Pope Zephyrinus, A.D. 200, and 
Pope Stephen, A.D. 250. Dean MILMAN also admits that “Cyprian acknowledged 
the hereditary descent of the Roman Bishops from the great Apostle ” (Hist. of Latin 
Christ. Ὁ. ii. c. 4, Ρ. 238, vol. i.) 5 and that ‘*‘the succession of the Bishop of 
Rome from St. Peter was now, near 200 years after his death, an accredited tradi- 
tion” (1b. Ὁ. i. Cc. 1, p- 66). The Protestant Archbishop BRAMHALL had 
acknowledged long before, “ that St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Aftioch, and 
after that a¢ Rome, is what no man who giveth any credit to the ancient Fathers, 
and Councils, and historiographers of the Church can either deny or well doubt 
of” (Bramhall’s Works, p. 628, ed. Oxon.). See also Bishop PEARSON'S Ofera 
Posthuma, London, 1688. 

Complete catalogues of the Bishops of Rome are given by Irenzeus, Hip- 
polytus, Eusebius, Optatus, Epiphanius, and Augustine, from 
St. Peter down to their own contemporaries. (See Note I. ad fin.) Caius, 
A.D. 220, names Pope Victor as “‘ the 13th Bishop of Rome FROM PETER” 
(τρισκαιδεκατος amo Ilerpou ev Pwun επισκοπος. Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. 
c. 28). St. Hippolytus, A.D. 225, in the portion of his Chronicle from which 
the earlier part of the ancient Liberian Catalogue was derived (See Smith's Dict. 
of Christ. Biogr. and Literat. vol. i. pp. 507, 555.) “COUNTS PETER AS FIRST 
BisHor OF RoME” (70. p. 577): Busebius says that “ Linus was the first 
AFTER PETER to obtain the Episcopate of the Roman Church” (Awos δὲ πρωτος 
μετα Πετρον της Ῥωμαιων ἐκκλησιᾶς τὴν ἐπισκοπήν, K.T.A. Hist.*Eccles. lib. iii. 
c. 4). Hegesippus (A.D. 156) and Irenceus were the authorities that 
Eusebius relied on as to the first Roman Bishops, and the duration of their Epis- 
copate. Hegesippus states, that when he was in Rome, he wrote down the list 
of the Bishops up to Anicetus” (διαδοχὴν εποιησαμεν mexpts "Avxynrov. Ap. Euseb. 
Hist. Eccles. iv. 22). See Dollinger’s First Age of the Church, p. 299, 2d edit. 


The See of Peter. 61 


tions of the Church were laid. . . . Stephen, who proclaims 
that he OCCUPIES BY SUCCESSION THE CHAIR OF PETER, is 
moved by no zeal against heretics,” &c.1 (De Episcopatus sul 
loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit, super 
quem fundamenta Ecclesiz collocata sunt... . Stephanus, qui 
per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se predicat, &c. 
Epist. ad Cyprian. ap. Op. Cyp. p- 239, ed, Gold.). 

The Council of Arles, A.D. 314, in its Synodical Epistle 
to Pope Sylvester, calls Rome “THE PLACE IN WHICH THE 
APOSTLES DAILY SIT (IN JUDGMENT), and their blood 
without ceasing witnesses to the glory of God” (In quibus 
locis et Apostoli quotidie sedent, et cruor ipsorum sine inter- 
missione Dei gloriam testatur. Labbe, tom. i.p. 1425). 

The Council of Sardica, A.D. 343,2 “honours the me- 
mory of Peter,” by sanctioning appeals from all the pro- 
vinces “TO THE HEAD, 2¢, TO THE SEE OF THE APOSTLE 
PETER” (Ei Soxes ὕμων TH ἀγαπῇῃ Πετρου τοὺ αποστολου 
την μνημὴην τιμήσομεν Και γραφηναι παρα τουτῶν τῶν Κρί- 
ναντων ᾿Ιουλίῳ τῳ επισκοπῷ Ῥωμης, κι τ. λ. Can. iil. Hoc 
enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si 
ad caput, id est ad Petri Apostoli Sedem, de singulis qui- 
busque ‘provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes. 215. ad 
Julium, Labbe, ii, p. 661). 

st, Athanasius, A.D. 362, calls Rome “ THE APOSTOLIC 
THRONE” (αποστολίκος θρονος. fist. Arian. ad Monach. 


n. 35). 


1 In his Epistle to St. Cyprian, FIRMILIAN writes in a hostile and violent 
manner against Pope Stephen, from whom he differed on the disciplinary ques- 
tion of the re-baptisation of converted heretics. Whilst declaiming bitterly, 
however, against what he supposed to be an arbitrary and uncalled-for exercise 
of the Pope's authority in that particular matter, he does not for a moment call 
his authority itself in question, or deny that he ‘‘ held by succession the Chair of 
Peter ’—which, undoubtedly, his indignation against him would have impelled 
him to do, had such a mode of opposing him been practicable, and had not the 
fact of the Pope’s succession from St. Peter been undisputed and indisputable. 
See, on the whole controversy, Monsgr. FREPPEL’S 5. Cyprien, pPp- 363-446, 
Paris, 1865. : 

2 See the history of the Council of Sardica and its Canons in HEFELE'S His- 
tory of the Church Councils, Eng. trans. vol. ii. pp 86-176, Clark, Edinburgh, 
1876. See also BoTTaLLa’s Papacy and Schism (in reply to Fioulkes), p. 28 
seq. ; and HERGENROTHER’S Anti-Fanus, Eng. trans, pp. 130, 131. 


62 The See of Peter. 
St. Optatus of Milevis, addressing the Donatist, Par- 


menian, says: “ You cannot affect ignorance of the fact, that 
THE EPISCOPAL CHAIR WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED BY PETER 
IN THE CITY OF ROME, IN WHICH SAT PETER, THE HEAD 
OF ALL THE APOSTLES” (Negare non potes scire te in 
urbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse colla- 
tam, in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus, 
De Schism. Donat. 1. ii, ἢ, 2, p. 76, ed. Hurter). “ PETER, 
THEREFORE, FIRST FILLED THAT PRE-EMINENT CHAIR, 
which is the first of the marks of the Church (the preroga- 
tives); to whom succeeded Linus,” &c.* (Ergo Cathedram 
unicam, que est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui 
successit Lints, &c. Jd. c. 3, p. 76). “If Macrobius be 
asked in what Chair he sits in Rome, can he answer, In THE 
CHAIR of PETER?” (Si Macrobio dicatur, ubi illic sedeat, 
numquid potest dicere in Cathedra Petri? /0. c. 4, p. 78. 
Comp. c. 5, p. 81). 

Pope Damasus, A.D. 370, in his reply to the Synodical 
Epistle of the Council of Constantinople, calls his See “ THE 
APOSTOLIC CHAIR, . . . this Holy Church, wherein the holy 
Apostle, sitting, taught, &c. (Apzst. ix. ad Synod. Orient. 
cont. Apollinar. Galland, vi. p. 336). 

St. Ambrose :—“ They (the Novatians) have not Peter's 
inheritance who have not PETER’S CHAIR” (Non habent 
Petri hereditatem, qui Petri Sedem non habent. De fani- 
tent, lib. 1. c. 7, n. 32). 

The Council of Carthage, A.D. 416, to Pope Innocent: 
— These proceedings of ours, Lord and Brother, we have 

1 The Protestant historian NEANDER says: “ Optatus of Milevis, who wrote in 
the last half of the fourth’century, represents the Apostle Peter as the head of the 
Apostles—as the representative of the unity of the Church and of the Apostolic 
power, who had received the keys of the kingdom for the purpose of giving them 
to the others. . . . /# the Roman Church he perceives the indestructible Cathedra 
Petri. This stood in the same relation to the other Episcopal Churches as the 
Apostle Peter stood to the rest of the Apostles. ‘The Roman Church represents the 
one visible Church, the one episcopate. There was one Apostolic power in 
Peter, from which the Apostolic powers of the others issued forth, as it were like 
so many different streams ; and, in like manner, there is one episcopal power in 


the Roman Church, from which the other episcopal powers are but so many dif- 
ferent streams.”—Bohn’s Meander, vol. iii. pp. 236, 237. 


The See of Peter. : 63 


thought are to be made known to your holy charity, 
that to the statutes of our lowliness may be applied 
the authority of THE APOSTOLIC SEE,! for the defence of 
the salvation of many, and the correction of the perversity of 
some” (Ut statutis nostre mediocritatis etiam Apostolice 
Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas, pro tuenda salute multorum, et 
quorundam perversitate etiam corrigenda. fist, xxvi. in 
ed. Coustant.; Zpist. clxxv. Jnnocentio, n. 2, Op. 5 
August.). 

Council of Milevis, A.D. 417:—‘“ As the Lord, by the 
sovereign gift of His own grace, has placed you in THE 
APOSTOLIC SEE, . . . we beseech you that you would 
vouchsafe to apply your pastoral diligence to the great 
dangers, &c. . . . We think that . . . those who hold such 
pernicious opinions (Pelagians), will more easily yield to the 
authority of your Holiness, derived as it is from the autho- 
rity of the Holy Scriptures” (Quia te Dominus gratie suz 
precipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit, talemque 
nostris temporibus prestitit. . . . Arbitramur, adjuvante 
misericordia Domini Dei nostri, qui te et regere consulen- 
tem, et orantem exaudire dignatur, auctoritati sanctitatis 
tue, de Sanctarum Scripturarum auctoritate cdeprompte 
facilius eos... esse cessuros. LEpist. Concil. Milev. .Inno- 
centio, Op. S. August. Epist. clxxvi. p. 928).” 


1 ‘They implore,” says MILMAN, “the dignity of the Apostolic throne, of 
the successor of St. Peter, to complete and ratify that which is wanting to their 
more moderate power.” —Hist. of Lat. Christ. Ὁ. ii. c. 2, Pp. 154. 

2 Regarding the reply of Pope Innocent to these appeals, St. Augustine 
remarked :—‘*‘ He wrote back to us on all these matters IN A MANNER THAT 
WAS RIGHT AND BECOMING IN THE PRELATE OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE” 
(Zpist. clxxxvi. Paulino, n. 2). MILMAN says: ‘He did not pass by the 
opportunity of asserting, as an acknowledged maxim, the dignity of the Apostolic 
See, the source of episcopacy, and the advantage of an appeal to a tribunal which 
might legislate for all Christendom” (Hist. of Lat. C: hrist. vol. i. p. 154). “It is 
impossible to doubt,’ says NEANDER, “‘as to what the Popes, even as early asthe 
fifth century, believed themselves to be, or would fain be, in relation to the rest 
of the Church, after having once listened to the language which they themselves 
hold on this subject. When a North-African Council at Carthage had sent a 
report of their conclusions, in the decision of a controverted point of doctrine, to 
the Roman Bishop Innocent, and demanded his assent to these conclusions ; in his 
answer of the year 417, he first praised them because they had considered them- 
selves bound to submit the matter to his judgment, since they were aware what 


64 Ἂ The See of Peter. 


General Council of Ephesus :—Arcadius, the Legate, 
said :—“ Let your Blessednéss order the letter of the holy 
and venerable Pope Celestine, Bishop of THE APOSTOLIC 
SEE, to be read, from which you will be able to know what 
care he has for all the Churches” (εἰ. ii. p. 611). 

General Council of Chalcedon :— “ THE APOSTOLIC 
THRONE ” (Sess. i. p. 94). 

Canon of St. Patrick, A.D. 450:—“ Ifany case of extreme 
difficulty shall arise, . . . let it be referred to the See of the 
chief Bishop of the Irish (that is, of Patrick). . . . But if it 
cannot easily be decided in that See, . . . we have decreed 
that it be sent to THE APOSTOLIC SEE, THAT IS, TO THE 
CHAIR OF THE APOSTLE PETER, which holds the authority 
of the city of Rome” (Ad Sedem Apostolicam decrevimus 
esse mittendam, id est, ad Petri Apostoli Cathedram auctori- 
tatem Romz urbis habentem. Can. S. Patric. vide Moran's 
Essays on the Early Trish Church, 1864, c. 11. p. 120 ef seq. ; 
and Appendix, No. vi. p. 304). 

St. Jerome (to Pope Damasus) :—“I am linked in com- 
munion with thy Blessedness, that is, with THE CHAIR OF 
PETER. ON THAT ROCK I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS 
BUILT ” (Beatitudini tue, id est, Cathedrz Petri, communione 
consocior. Super illam petram edificatam Ecclesiam scio. 
Epist. xv. ad Damasum tom. i, p. 38). “I cry out, If any 
one is joined to THE CHAIR OF PETER, he is mine” (Ego 
interim clamito, Si quis Cathedrz Petri jungitur, meus est. 
Epist. xvi. n. 2, p. 42). “THE APOSTOLIC CHAIR” (2:1. 
cxxx. ad Demetriad. n. 16). “THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Adv. 
Ruffin, ii. 15). 
was due to the Apostolical Chair ; since all who occupied this seat strove to 
follow in the steps of that Apostle from whom the episcopal dignity itself, and 
the entire authority of this name, had emanated. ‘With good right had they held 
sacred the institutions of the Fathers, who had decided, not according to human, 
but according to the Divine counsels, that whatever was transacted in the pro- 
vinces, let them be ever so remote, should not be considered as ratified until it 
had come to the knowledge of the Apostolic Chair; so that by its entire autho- 
rity every just decision might be confirmed, and the other Churches (as the pure 
streams should be distributed from the original, undisturbed source, through the 
different countries of the whole world) might learn from λὲς Church what they 


had to ordain, whom they had to pronounce innocent, and whom to reject as 
irreclaimably wrong” (Meander, vol. iii. pp. 241, 242). 


The See of Peter. 65 


St. Siricius, Pope, A.D. '386 :—‘‘ THE APOSTOLIC ROCK, 
UPON WHICH CHRIST CONSTRUCTED THE UNIVERSAL 
CHURCH, ... THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Prefatam regulam 
omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolice petre, 
super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soli- 
ditate divelli. . . . Ab omniecclesiastico honore, quo indigne 
usi sunt, Apostolic Sedis auctoritate dejectos, &c. Ffzst. 
i. Himer. Episc. Tarracon. n. 3, 11). “To none of the Lord's 
priests is it allowable to be ignorant of the statutes of THE 
APOSTOLIC SEE; or of the venerable decisions of the Canons” 
(Statuta Sedis Apostolice, &c. 1706. ἢ. 20, Galland, vii. 
Ρ. 533-536). 

St. Augustine :—‘ Number the Bishops, even from THE 
SEE ITSELF OF PETER ; and in that order of Fathers see who 


succeeded to whom: THIS IS THE ROCK WHICH THE PROUD ἡ 


GATES OF HELL OVERCOME NOT” (Numerate sacerdotes vel 
ab ipsa Sede Petri; ... ipsa est petra quam non vincunt 
superbe inferorum porte. Jn Ps. Cont. Part. Donat. tom. ix. 
p. 49). “THE CHAIR OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, IN WHICH 
PETER SAT, and in which Anastasius sits at present” (Covet. 
Lit. Petilian. lib. ii. n. 118, tom. ix. p. 411). “The Roman 
Church, IN WHICH THE PRIMACY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE 
HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN FORCE” (Romana Ecclesia, in qua 
semper Apostolic Cathedre viguit principatus. 2151. xliil. 


Glorio et cet. n. 7, tom. ii. p. 136). “The succession of pre- | 


lates in THE VERY CHAIR OF THE APOSTLE PETER, . .. 
down to the present Episcopate, keeps me in the Catholic 
Church” (Tenet ab ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas 
oves suas Dominus conimendavit usque ad presentem epis- 
copatum successio sacerdotum. Cont. Ep. Manic. n. 5, tom. 
viii. p. 268). “Some of these men (Pelagians) before this 


1 ‘The answer of Siricius ” (to Himerius), says MILMAN, ‘is in the tone of 
one who supposes that the usages of the Church of Rome were to be received as those 
of Christendom” (vol. i. p. 97). Yet JANUS has the assurance to state that ‘‘ the 
Popes at that time made no attempt to exercise legislative power. . . - Declara- 
tions or ordinances issued by Popes in reply to questions of particular Bishops 
could not be regarded as general laws of the Church, for this simple reason, that 
they were only known to particular Bishops and Churches” (Fanus, p. 79, Eng. 
trans.). DOLLINGER says that “ the Popes issued their decrees for the Oriental 
Church no less than for the Western” (Hist. of Ch. vol. ii. p. 225). 

E 


4 


66 The See of Peter. 


pestilence was condemned also by the most manifest judg- 
ment of THE APOSTOLIC SEE, might have been known to 
you, but whom you ‘may now see of a sudden silent” (Epzs¢. 
cxci. Sirto,n. 2, p. 1064). “ For already on this cause (Pela- 
gianism) the decisions of two Councils have been sent to 
THE APOSTOLIC SEE; thence also answers (rescripta) have 
come. The cause is ended (causa finita est); would that at 
length the error may end” (Serm. cxxxi. de Verb. Evang. 
Foan. Vi. nN. 10, Ρ. 930). 

St. Gelasius, Pope :—“ Granting to THE SEE, which he 
himself (Peter) blessed, that, in accordance with the -Lord’s 
promise, IT SHOULD NEVER BE CONQUERED BY ‘THE GATES 
OF HELL,’! and be the safest harbour of those tossed by the 
waves” (Prestans Sedi, quam ipse benedixit, ut a portis 
inferi nunquam pro Domini promissione vincatur omnium- 
que sit fluctuantium tutissimus portus. Epist. xiv. p. 1216, 
Galland, x.; Tvact.ii. n. 10, ed. Thiel. p. 259). 

Theodoret :—“ If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet 
of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter, to convey 
from him the solution to those at Antioch, who were at issue 
about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and 
humble, run to THE APOSTOLIC THRONE, to receive from 
you (Pope Leo) healing for the wounds of the Churches. 
For it pertains to you to have the primacy in all things; for 
your throne is adorned with many prerogatives” (Ev Παυλος 

. πρὸς Tov μεγαν εδραμε IIetpov . . . πολλῳ μαλλον nels, 
οἱ εντέλεις και OTTLKPOL, προς TOY ἀποστολίκον ὕμων τρέχομεν 
θρονον, wate παρ᾽ ὕμων λαβειν τοις των EeKKANTLWV ελκεσι θερα- 
πειαν. Ava παντα yap ὗμιν το πρωτεύειν APLOTTEL. Πολλοις 


1 Comp. the words of St. Leo Mag. (Serm. εἰ Epist. passim), of Pope 
Simplicius (ist. iv.), and of Council of Rome, A.D. 494 (Labbe, tom. 
ii. p. 1013). Sergius, the Metropolitan of Cyprus, thus addressed Pope 
Theodore :—‘*O holy head! Christ our God hath destined THY APOSTOLIC SEE 
ΤῸ BE AN IMMOVABLE FOUNDATION, AND A PILLAR OF THE FAITH. For 
thou art, as the Divine Word truly said, Peter, and ON THEE, AS A FOUNDA- 
TION-STONE, have the pillars of the Church been fixed” (Zpist. ad Theod, Lect. 
in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. Anno 649). ‘‘The writings of the Fathers,” says HER- 
GENROTHER, “ whenever they speak of the Pope, are full of echoes and allusions 
to those Scriptural words, and what is said of Peter the Popes claim decidedly 
for themselves ” (Anti-Fanus, Eng. trans. p. 63). 


The See of Peter. 67 


yap ὁ ὕμετερος Opovos κοσμειτᾶι πλεονεκτημασι. Ἐπί. cxiil. 
Leoni, tom. iv. p. 1187). ‘For that all holy throne has the 
office of heading the Churches of the whole. world, for 
many reasons; and, above all others, because IT HAS RE- 
MAINED FREE OF THE COMMUNION OF HERETICAL TAINT, 
AND NO ONE HOLDING HETERODOX SENTIMENTS EVER SAT 


"IN IT, BUT IT HAS PRESERVED THE APOSTOLIC GRACE UN- 


SULLIED”! (eyes yap ὁ πανάγιος Opovos exewos τῶν κατὰ τὴν 

οἰκουμένην EKKANTLOV τὴν ἡγεμονίαν δια πολλα, κιτλ. LEpist. 

cxvi. Renato, p. 1197). 7 
Bachiarius, A.D. 420 :—“ Not one of them (the heresies) 


1 See, on this subject, the admissions of Dean MILMAN (Hist. of Lat. Christ. 
vol. i. pp. 37, 38, 76-79, 104-111, 115, 177, 195, 228, 254, 271, 272, &c.). PALMER 
says: ‘* We find that the Roman Church was zealous to maintain the true faith 
from the earliest period, condemning and expelling the Gnostics, Artemonites, 
&c.; and, during the Arian mania it was THE BULWARK OF THE CATHOLIC 
FAITH” (TZyveatise on the Church, vol. ii. part vi. Ὁ. 3, p. 472). The agency of 
the Holy See in maintaining the integrity of revelation, through a long lapse 
of ages, was acknowledged by the learned Protestant CASAUBON :—*‘ No one 
who is in the least versed in ecclesiastical history can doubt that GOD MADE 
USE OF THE ROMAN PONTIFFS, DURING MANY AGES, TO PRESERVE THE 
DOCTRINES OF THE TRUE FAITH” (Nemo autem peritus rerum Ecclesiz ignorat, 
opera Romanorum Pontificum per multa szecula Deum esse usum in conservanda 
rectze fidei doctrinam. J Annal. Baron. Exercit. xv. Ῥ. 384, Genevee, 1655). 
‘‘ The orthodoxy of the West,” says MILMAN, “" stood out in bold relief at the 
Council of Sardica. . . . Western-Christendom might seem disposed to show its 
gratitude to Rome for its pure and consistent orthodoxy, by acknowledging at 
Sardica a certain right of appeal to the Bishop of Rome from Illyricum and 
Macedonia” (vol. i. pp. 78, 79). Both this writer, and also NEANDER and 
Archbishop TRENCH, attribute the development and increase of the Papal power 
in a great measure to the unswerving orthodoxy of the Apostolic See (see 
Neander’s Church Hist. vol.fiii. pp. 242, 243, and Trench’s Lectures on Medveval 
Church Hist. p. 154). The learned Protestant Archbishop USHER, referring to 
the above-quoted Canon of St. Patrick, in which it is decreed that in difficult 
matters an appeal should be made to the Apostolic See, says :—‘‘ It is most 
likely that St. Patrick had a special regard for the Church of Rome, from whence 
he was sent forthe conversion of this island ; so as, if I myself had lived in his 
days, for the resolution of a doubtful question, I should as willingly have 
listened to the judgment of the Church of Rome, as to the determination of any 
Church in the whole world: so reverent an estimation have 7 of the integrity of 
that Church [ας it stood in those days” (Dissert. On the Religion of the Ancient 
Trish, c. viii. Works, Dub. ed. vol. iv. p. 330). This seems a curious admission, 
considering what, according to the acknowledgment of Milman and Neander, 
the Roman Church had taught regarding her own supremacy, even many years 
before the time of Pope Celestine and St. Patrick ! 


68 The See of Peter. 


either could hold or move THE CHAIR OF PETER, THAT IS, 
THE SEE OF FAITH” (Nulla earum Cathedram Petri, hoc est, 
sedem fidei, aut tenere potuit, aut movere. De Fide, n. 2, 
p. 183, Galland, ix.). 

Paulinus, the Deacon, a.D. 418:— “I appeal to the 
justice of your blessedness, my Lord Zosimus, venerable 
Pope. The TRUE FAITH IS NEVER TROUBLED, AND ESPE- 
CIALLY IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, wherein the teachers 
of a corrupt faith are as easily detected as they are truly 
punished,” &c. (Libel/. adv. Celest. Zosimo Obl. n. 1, Pp. 32, 
Galland, ix.). 

In the Formula of Pope Hormisdas, a.D, 517, which 
was signed by the Emperor Justinian, by the Patriarchs of 
Constantinople—Epiphanius, John, and Mennas—by 2500 
Oriental Bishops (Dollinger, vol. ii. p. 221, Eng. trans.), and 
confirmed by the Fathers of the eighth General Council, it is 
said:—“ Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
when He said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build My Church,’ &c., cannot be set aside; this, which is 
said, is proved by the results; for IN THE APOSTOLIC SEE 
RELIGION HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESERVED WITHOUT SPOT. 
_. . IN WHICH (SEE) IS THE PERFECT AND TRUE SOLIDITY 
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION” (Hec, que dicta sunt, rerum 
probantur effectibus, quia in Sede Apostolica. immaculata 
est semper servata religio.... In qua est integra et verax 
Christiane religionis soliditas. Form. Hormisd. Ep. Orvent. 
Prescript. Denzinger’s Enchirid. p. 42). 

General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680. In this 
Council the Epistle of Pope Agatho was read, and received 
as the voice of Peter. Addressing the Emperor, he says: 
“Relying on the protection (of Peter), THIS, HIS APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH, HAS NEVER DEVIATED FROM THE WAY OF TRUTH 
IN ANY WAY OF ERROR WHATSOEVER; and his authority, 
as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic 
Church of Christ and all the universal Synods always and 
faithfully have in all things embraced and followed... . 
Which Apostolic Church, by the grace of Almighty God, 
WILL NEVER BE CONVICTED OF ERRING FROM THE PATH 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. 69 


OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR HAS IT EVER YIELDED OR 
BEEN DEPRAVED BY HERETICAL NOVELTIES >. but as it 
received in the beginning of the Faith from its founders, the 
chief of the Apostles of Christ, IT ABIDES UNTAINTED TO 
THE END, ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE PROMISE OF OUR 
LORD AND SAVIOUR HIMSELF, which in the Holy Gospels 
He uttered to the Prince of His disciples: ‘Peter, Peter, 
behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat: but I have 
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou, when 
thou art converted, confirm thy brethren’” (Que [Eccl. 
Rom.] ejus [Petri] annitente presidio nunquam a via veritatis 
in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est... . Quz per Dei Om- 
nipotentis gratiam a tramite Apostolice traditionis nunquam 
errasse probabitur, nec hzreticis novitatibus depravata suc- 
cubuit, sed ut ab exordio fidei Christiane percepit ab auctori- 
bus suis Apostolorum Christi principibus illibata fine tenus 
permanet, &c. Labbe, Comcz/. tom. vii. pp. 659, 662, ed. Ven. 
1720). 

St. Columbanus, writing in the name of the Irish Church, 
A.D, 608, calls Rome “ THE PRINCIPAL SEE OF THE ORTHO- 
DOX FAITH” (Fidei orthodox sedem principalem. Epist. ad, 
Bonif. Pap. p. 353, Galland, tom. xii.). 


2. This Church Presides—It has a more Powerful Headship 
_It is the Chief or Ruling Church, and the Source of Ecclest- 
astical Unity—The Church in Which the Primacy of the 
Apostolic See has always been in Force—The First of all the 
Sees—The Head of all the Churches—Appointed by God to 
Rule over all the Rest, and from Which flow unio all the 
Rights of Venerable Communion —~ The Head of Pastoral 
Honour, by Which, by Christ's Concession, the Dignity of all 
Priests is Confirmed— Which Confirms every S ynod by Its 
Authority, and without Whose Authority no Council can be 
Held—Which Judges the Whole Church, and itself is Judged 
of None, &¢. 


St. Ignatius, A.D. 107, addresses the Roman Church as 


70 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


the one “WHICH PRESIDES” (ἥτις καὶ προκαθηται) in the 
place of the country of the Romans, all-godly, all-gracious, 
all-blessed, all-praised, all-prospering, all-hallowed, and PRE- 
SIDING IN THE COVENANT OF LOVE” (προκαθημενὴ της 
ayarns! Epist. ad Rom. Proem.). Cureton’s translation 
from the ancient SYRIAC version is as follows :—“ To her who 
PRESIDETH in the place of the country of the Romans, who 
is worthy of God, and worthy of life and happiness and 
praise and remembrance, and is worthy of prosperity, and 
PRESIDETH IN LOVE, and is perfected in the law of Christ 
blameless ” (Corpus Ignatianum, Ὁ. 230, London, 1849). 

St. Gregory Nazianzen says :—“ The faith (of Rome) was 
of old, and still is now, right, binding the whole West by the 
saving word, as is just in her who PRESIDES OVER ALL, 
reverencing the whole harmonious teaching of God” (Tovtav 
Se πιστις ἡ μεν nv ex πλειονος---Και νυν er’ eativ evdpopos, την 
eotrepav—Ilacav δεουσα τῳ σωτεριῳ Aoyw,—Kabws δικαιον την 


προεδρον των okwv,—OXAnv σεβουσαν τὴν θεου συμφωνιαν," 


Carm. de Vité Sud, vv. 568-573, tom. ii, p. 704). 

St. Irenzeus, A.D. 178:—“ With this Church (of Rome), 
on account of HER MORE POWERFUL HEADSHIP, it is neces- 
sary that every Church—that is, the faithful everywhere 
dispersed—should agree” or “ be in communion” (Ad hanc 
Ecclesiam, propter po(ten)tiorem principalitatem, necesse 
est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt 
undique fideles. Adv. Her. lib. iii. c. 3, ed. Massuet). 

lhe original Greek text of Irenzeus has been lost, and there 
has been much controversy regarding the word rendered 
principalitatem in the ancient and perfectly literal Latin 

1 See, on the force of this expression, Wocher (Zfist. of St. Jenat. p. 82, 
Tubing. 1829). ‘* Il voit dans l’évéque de Rome l’hérétier de la prééminence de 
Pierre, de la le nom de mpoxa@nuevn τῆς ayarns, ‘ présidente du lien de la 
charité,’ qu’il décerne a l’Eglise” (Alzog’s FPatrologie, p. 64, Paris, 1877). It 
should be observed, also—1. That the word rendered “ PRESIDE” is used in two 
other places by St. Ignatius, and in each place it implies superior dignity : mpoxa- 
θημενου Tov επισκοποὺυ εἰς τοπον θεου (Lpist. ad Magnes. τι. 6) ; τοις προκαθημενοι 
(/6.). 2. That in all his Epistles to other Churches, instead of ‘‘ PRESIDEs,” St. 
Ignatius invariably uses the word “1s”: “Τὸ the Church which Is_(ry ovey) 


in Ephesus;” ‘‘to the Church which Is (τὴν ovoay) in Magnesia,” ‘‘in 
Smyrna,” ὅτ. 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


version, which was made at the end of the second century, 
and was the one used by Tertullian, as the learned editor, 
Massuet, has clearly proved. SALMASIUS and MASSUET con- 
jecture that it was πρωτεῖον ;1 GRABE, ἀρχὴν or αὐθεντιαν. 
ARMELLINI and HERGENROTHER prefer av@evtiay, but Gries- 
bach, apynv; THIERSCH and GIESELER, πρωτειαν; and STIE- 
REN, apyautnta. The controversy seems to have been set 
at rest by SCHNEEMANN (S. Jrenei, De Ecclesie Romane 
Principatu Testimonium, Commentatum et Defensum, Friburg, 
1870), who, after carefully examining all the passages in 
which “ principalitas” occurs in the Latin version, and com- 
paring them with the corresponding Greek in the fragments 
of Irenzeus that have been preserved in the original, con- 
cludes :—‘ Quotiescunque ‘frincipalitas’ in versione Latina 
reperitur, auctoritatem, potestatem, presertim supremam, 
divinam, significat, et quidem, si vox greca nomen substan- 
tivum est, semper fere αὐθεντια, semel apyn, cum eadem 
tamen significatione, usurpatur” (p. 22). He examines, in 
like manner, the passages in which the Vetus Interpres uses 
the synonymous word “ principatus,” and concludes :—* Ergo 
viginti tribus versionis antique locis ‘principalitas’ vel 
synonyma vox ‘principatus’ potestatem, dominationem, im- 
perium significat.. Nullum alium locum, ubi voces illz posite 
essent, toto opere perlecto, reperimus, neque adversarii 
attulerunt.” ” 


1 They confirm their opinion by a passage in lib. iv. c. 38, n. 3 :—mpwrever ev 
πασιν ὁ Geos, which the Vetus Interpres renders “ principalitatem habebit in om- 
nibus Deus.” He also translates αρχης, occurring in Ephes. i. 21, by princtpalt- 
tatem in lib. ii. c. 30, n. 9. According to SCHNEEMANN, “ propter potentiorem 
principalitatem ” = δια τὴν ικανωτεραν αὐυθεντιαν. 

2 Replying to the author of No. 4 of the “ Church Defence Tracts,” Fr. 
AppiIs says : *‘ My opponent contends, that while in two places ‘ principalitas ’ is 
used for principality and supremacy, in the others it is used for the ‘ pleroma,’ and 
for an ‘original and primary being.’ He forgets that the primary being of the 
Gnostics was also supreme, and that this supremacy is specially emphasised by St. 
Irenzeus (cf. lib. i. 26, 1 :—principalitas quze est super universa) ; but; fortunately, 
we can bring matters to a crucial test. In two of the places (i. 26,1; andi. 31, 
1) in which we are told that ‘principalitas > does not mean supremacy, we have the 
original Greek (in Philosoph. x. 21, and in Theodoret. Heret. Fab.i. 15). In 
both these places the Greek word which answers to ‘ principalitas’ is αυθεντια, and 
for avdevria Liddel and Scott give but one rendering, viz., ‘absolute sway’” 
(Anglicanism and the Fathers, p. 12). 


72 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


TERTULLIAN thus defines the word principalitas :—“ Ad 
hec dispicere superest principalitas ubi sit, id est, gut cut 
preest;” ἅς. (De Animé, c. 13). “It remains to examine 
where lies the supremacy ; in other words, which of the two zs 
superior to the other” (the soul or the mind). ... “It is to 
the soul that you ascribe the supremacy, ... the ruling 
power” (Holmes’ Zertudiian, Clark’s Anti-Nicene Christian 
Library). 

The writers who refer the “potentior principalitas” of the 
Roman Church to its Apostolic origin or higher antiquity are 
efuted by Schneemann (oc. cit.). St. Irenzus, in lib. iii. c. 12, 
assigns a higher honour, as regards its antiquity, to the Church 
of Jerusalem,—“ the metropolis of the citizens of the New 
Covenant ;” and, as regards mere Apostolic foundation and 
antiquity, the Church of Antioch and others were nothing 
‘nferior to that of Rome. It is clear that the claim of the 
latter to Apostolic origin or great antiquity would not have 
been a sufficient proof or guarantee of the truth of its doc- 
trine, even at the time when St. Irenzus wrote; for to this 
the heretics of his day might have answered, with Anglicans, 
that “as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch 
had erred, so also had the Church of Rome erred,” &c. 
What St. Irenzeus declares of the Church of Rome is, that, 
on account of its more powerful headship or supremacy, EVERY 
other Church must of necesssity agree with and submit to tt; 
and that, dy appealing to its tradition, “ ALL” heretics— 
opposing tt—stand utterly confounded. 

It may be observed that Roberts and Rambaut, the Pro- 
testant translators of Irenzeus in Clark’s Anti-Nicene Christian 
Library, render the passage in question “on account of ITS 
PRE-EMINENT AUTHORITY.” Grabe and the earlier Protes- 
tant writers pretended that by principalitas the civil prince- 
dom of Rome was denoted—an interpretation now generally 
abandoned as untenable by all whose judgment is of any 
value. The fact that St. Irenzeus wrote in the time of Pope 
Eleutherus (ze., between the year 177, when M. Aurelius was 
persecuting the Christians, and 192, which was the last of 
the Emperor Commodus), and that he himself describes it as 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. 73 


an age of persecution (lib. iv. c. 33, Π. 9), is alone enough to 
show the absurdity of the interpretation referred to. 

St. Cyprian, who teaches that “ there is One Church 
founded by the Lord UPON PETER, FOR THE ORIGIN AND 
PURPOSE OF UNITY” (Una Ecclesia super Petrum origine 
unitatis et ratione fundata. fist. xx. ad Januar.), calls the 
RoMAN Church, in which is the See of Peter, “THE CHIEF 
OR RULING CHURCH, WHENCE THE UNITY OF THE PRIEST- 
HOOD HAS ITS SOURCE” (Ecclesiam PRINCIPALEM unde 
unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. Zpist. lv. Baluz. lix. n. 19, ed. 
Goldh.). Compare the words of St. Augustine: “The 
Roman Church, IN WHICH THE PRIMACY OF THE APOSTOLIC 
SEE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN FORCE” (In qua semper Apos- 
tolicee Cathedre viguit PRINCIPATUS. 2252. xlii.) ; of Pope 
Boniface, A.D. 422: “ The Apostolic See holds THE PRIMACY, 
that it may receive the complaints of all” (Ideo tenet Sedes 
Apostolica PRINCIPATUM ut querelas omnium licentes ac- 
ceptet, &c. Epist. xiv. n. 4); and of Pope Anastasius 11.," 
A.D. 496: “Through the ministry of my lowliness . . . may 
the See of Peter hold THE PRIMACY ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE 
LORD OUR GOD IN THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH” (Sedes Petri 
in Universali Ecclesia assignatum sibi a Domino teneat 


1 GRABE also supposed that Christians were constantly going on embassies 
to the Roman Emperors, —a fiction which is thus refuted by the learned Massuet : 
ἐς Si Irenaeus de confluxu eorum, qui ab Ecclesiis Romam mittebantur, ut caussam 
Christianorum agerent apud Imperatores, intelligendus sit; sensus erit, necesse 
fuisse, omnem Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, Romam venire, ut 
caussam Christianorum agerent apud Imperatores. Atqui tantum abest, id necesse 
fuerit, ut ante Irenzei zetatem factum aliquando fuisse ne uno quidem exemplo 
probare possit Grabius. Plures quidem Christianorum Apologias oblatas Im- 
peratoribus, a Quadrato, Aristide, Melitone, Apollinari, Athenagora, et Justino 
legimus : sed eos ab Ecclesiis Romam missos fuisse, ut caussam Christianorum 
agerent apud Imperatores, falsissimum : immo plerosque, ipsum etiam Athenago- 
rum, cujus Apologize titulo, quod inscribatur Zegatio, abutitur Grabius, e patria 
pedem extulisse, ut Apologias suas offerent, nullibi legimus : si qui vero, ut Justi- 
nus, Romz obtulerint, dudum antea ibi degebant, nec huc eo fine venerant. Et, 
queso, quz necessitas Christianis adeundi Imperatores Ethnicos, a quibus nihil 
nisi jus omne fasque violatum sperare poterant "a 

2 Compare also the words of St. Leo the Great: ‘‘Curam quam uni- 
versis Ecclesiis PRINCIPALITER (i# virtue of our headship—ALLIEs) ex divina 
institutione debemus. Zpist. xiv. ad Anast. 1: hessal. Episc. See also the pas- 


sages cited in pp. 37, 45, 54, 78. 


74 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


PRINCIPATUM. Epist. i. ad Anast. August, Labbe, iv. p 

1278). 

St. Optatus will be cited later on. It will suffice to quote, 
in this place, the admission of the Protestant historian 
NEANDER, that “Optatus represents the Apostle Peter as 
HEAD of the Apostles... . IN THE ROMAN CHURCH HE 
PERCEIVES THE INDESTRUCTIBLE CATHEDRA PETRI. THIS 
STANDS IN THE SAME RELATION TO THE OTHER EPISCOPAL 
CHURCHES AS THE APOSTLE PETER STOOD TO THE REST OF 
THE APOSTLES” (Hist. of the Church, vol. iii. p. 236, Bohn’s 
ed. The whole passage is cited above in a note). 

Council of Sardica, A.D. 344:—‘‘ This will seem to be 
best, and by far most congruous, if the priests of the Lord, 
from each of the several provinces, refer to THE HEAD, that 
is, to the See of the Apostle Peter” (Ad caput, id est, ad Petri 
Apostoli Sedem.! Epist. Synod. ad Fulium, Labbe, ii. p. 
661). 

St. Ambrose, with the Council of Acquileia, A.D. 381, 
calls the Roman Church “ THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE ROMAN 
WORLD ” (East and West), . . . “ WHENCE FLOW UNTO ALL 
THE RIGHTS OF VENERABLE COMMUNION ” (Totius Romani 
orbis caput . . . inde enim in omnes venerandz communionis 
jura dimanant. ist. xi. ἢ. 4, p. 811). 

St. Siricius, Pope :—“ The Roman Church, THE HEAD OF 
THE BODY” (Causas, de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam, 
utpote ad caput tui corporis retulisti. Zpzst. i. ad Himer. τι. 
20, Galland, vii. p. 536). 

St. Anastasius I., Pope, A.D. 399 :—“ Certainly care shall 
not be wanting on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel 
as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am 
able, THE PARTS OF MY BODY THROUGHOUT THE DIVERS 
REGIONS OF THE EARTH ” (Partesque corporis mei per spatia 
diversa terrarum. List. i. ad Foann. Hieros. n. 5, Ὁ. 248, 
Galland, viii.). 


1 Referring to this, Pope Innocent, A.D. 410, says: “If any greater 
causes shall have arisen, let them, after the episcopal judgment, be referred to the 
Apostolic See, as the Synod ordained, and a blessed custom demands” (2 215έ. ii. 
Victoric. Rhotomag. Episc. n. 6, Galland, viii. p. 547). 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. . 75 


St. Innocent, Pope, A.D. 414:—* The Apostolic See, .. - 
THE HEAD OF THE CHURCHES” (Sedi Apostolice, ad quam 
... quasi ad caput Ecclesiarum. Epist xvii. n. i. ad Rufum 
et Socios, Ὁ. 575, 12... “THE HEAD AND SUMMIT OF THE 
EPISCOPATE” (Ad nos quasi ad caput atque ad apicem epis- 
copatus referre, ut consulta videlicet Sedes Apostolica ex 
ipsis rebus dubiis certum aliquid faciendumque pronunciet. 
Epist. xxxvii. n. 1, p. 608). 

St. Zosimus, Pope, A.D. 418 :—“ Although the tradition 
of the Fathers has ASSIGNED SO GREAT AN AUTHORITY TO 
THE APOSTOLIC SEE,. THAT NO ONE SHOULD DARE TO 
DISPUTE ABOUT A JUDGMENT GIVEN BY 111 and that See by 
canons and regulations has kept to this; and the discipline 
of the Church, in the laws which it follows, still pays to the 
name of Peter, from whom that See descends, the reverence 
due; for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed 
that so great a power should belong to that Apostle—a 
power also derived from the promise itself of Christ our God 
that he should loose what is bound, and bind what 15 
loosed, &c. .. . Seeing, then, that Peter is the head of so 
great authority, and that he has confirmed the statutes of all 
who have gone before us; and that by all laws and recula- 
tions, both human AND DIVINE, the Roman Church 1s 
strengthened; and you are not ignorant that we rule over 


1 The statements of NEANDER (vol. iii. p. 248), JANUS (p. 70, Eng. trans.), 
E. De PRESSENSE (Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Lit. p. 220), and others, that 
Pope Zosimus taught a different doctrine from his predecessor, Innocent 1., that 
“he proclaimed the orthodoxy of the Pelagian doctrines,” and that the African 
Bishops resisted him on this ground, are utterly false. The controversy was 
solely regarding ¢he personal orthodoxy of Calestius. ** The latter represented 
himself to Zosimus as perfectly orthodox, and obtained from him a mild treat- 
ment, as indeed Innocent had, in the case of his repentance, held out to him the 
same prospect; so that though for a time he deceived the Pontiff, he never at 
least received any sort of sanction to his errors, which were afterwards duly dis- 
covered” (Anti-Fanus, p. 78). St. Augustine himself distinctly denies that 
Zosimus ever approved of the Pelagian heresy (Lib. ii. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. 
ad Bonif. c. 3). Regarding the case of APIARIUS, and the controversy about 
African appeals to Rome, referred to by Palmer, Pusey, and other Anglican 
writers, see Allies’ Dr. Pusey and the Ancient Church, p. 69 seq. ; Kenrick's 
Primacy of the Apostolic See, 5th ed. p. 195 Seg-5 Murray, De Lcclesia, vol, 11]. 
p. 718 seg. 


76 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


his place, and are in possession also of the authority of his 
name; nevertheless, though SO GREAT BE OUR AUTHORITY, 
THAT NONE MAY RECONSIDER OUR SENTENCE,” &c. (Quam- 
vis patrum traditio Apostolice Sedi auctoritatem tantam 
tribuit, ut de ejus judicio disceptare nullus auderet.... Cum 
ergo tantz auctoritatis Petrus caput sit,... ut tam humanis 
quam divinis legibus et disciplinis omnibus firmetur Romana 
Ecclesia, cujus locum nos regere, ipsius quoque potestatem 
nominis obtinere non latet vos,... cum tantum nobis esset 
auctoritatis, ut nullus de nostra possit retractare sententia, 
&c. Epist. xii, n. 1; Aurelio ac ceteris, pp. 15, 16, Galland, 
ix.). 

St Boniface, Pope, A.D. 422:—“ The institution of the 
Universal Church began from the honour bestowed on blessed 
Peter, in whom its government and headship reside (In quo 
regimen ejus et summa consistit). For from him as its 
fountain-head did ecclesiastical discipline flow throughout all 
the Churches, when now the culture of religion had begun 
to make progress. Nor do the canons of Nicza testify 
otherwise, inasmuch as they do not venture to make any 
regulations in his regard, seeing that nothing could be con- 
ferred that was superior to his own dignity, and knowing 
that all things had been given him by the words of Christ. 
IT IS CERTAIN, THEN, THAT THIS SEE STANDS, IN RELATION 
TO THE CHURCHES SPREAD OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, AS 
THE HEAD IS TO ITS OWN MEMBERS ; from which Church 
whoso has cut himself off becomes an outcast from the 
Christian religion, since he has ceased to be in the same 
bonds of fellowship” (Hance ergo ecclesiis toto orbe diffusis 
velut caput suorum certum est esse membrorum; a qua se 
quisquis abscidit, fit religionis Christiane extorris, cum in 
eadem non czperit esse compage. Epist. xiv. n. 1, Rufo, p. 
57, Galland, ix.). 

Theodoret : — ‘THAT MOST HOLY THRONE HAS THE 
OFFICE OF HEADING THE CHURCHES OF THE WHOLE 
WORLD” (Epist. cxvi. Renato). See Greek and context, supra, 
pp. 66, 67. 

St. Prosper of Acquitaine, A.D. 429 -—“ Rome, the See 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. 77 


of Peter, .. . made to the world THE HEAD OF PASTORAL 
HONOUR, possesses by religion what it did not possess by 
arms” (Sedes Roma Petri, que pastoralis honoris facta caput 
mundo, quicquid non possidet armis, religione tenet. Carm. 
de Ingratis, p. 106, Bibl. Max. Pat. tom. viii.). 

In the General Council of Chalcedon, Paschasinus calls 
Rome, or its Bishop, “THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES ” 
(κεφαλὴ ς UTapxovTos πασῶν TOV εκκλησιων. Act. i. Ῥ. 93, 
Labbe). One of the charges made against Dioscorus in this 
Council was, that he “HAD PRESUMED TO HOLD A COUNCIL 
WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLIC THRONE, 
WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE OR LAWFUL TO DO” (ὅπερ 
ουδεποτε γεγονεν, ουδὲ εξον yeverOat Act. i. Ῥ. 94). 


1 Pope Julius had long before (A.D. 342) written to the Eusebians :—* Are 
you ignorant that this has been the custom, for word to be written first TO US, 
and so what is just to be DECREED FROM THIS PLACE 2?” (Zpist. ad Euseb. τι. 21, 
p. 13, Gall. v.). The Greek historian Socrates, A.D. 429, says -—** But 
neither was Julius present (at the Synod of Antioch), nor had he sent any one as 
his representative, although OUR ECCLESIASTICAL CANON DECREES THAT THE 
CHURCHES SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ROMAN 
BisHop ” (Hist. Eccles. ii. 8). Julius complained also that they had not invited 
him to their Synod: ‘‘ When AN ECCLESIASTICAL CANON DECREES THAT THE 
CHURCHES SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ROMAN 
BisHop” (2. ii. 17.) SozZomen, A.D. 440, gives Pope Julius’ answer to the 
Arian Bishops as follows —‘‘ It ‘s a sacerdotal law THAT THE THINGS DONE 
CONTRARY TO THE SENTIMENT (γνωμηνὴ OF THE BISHOP OF THE ROMANS BE 
LOOKED UPON AS NULL” (Hist. Eccles. iii. C. 10). 

Regarding the 28TH CANON OF THE CouNCIL OF CHALCEDON, which raised 
the See of Constantinople to the first Patriarchal rank after the Roman, 
DOLLINGER says that not only was it rejected by the Papal Legates and by the 
Pope, but also that “" the Emperor Marcian surrendered it, and extolled the con- 
stancy of the Pontiff in maintaining the rights of the Church. The whole 
Western Church repudiated the canon, and the Greeks themselves, until the 
time of Photius, did not place it in their collections ; hence Theodore Lector and 
John Scholasticus, who lived in the sixth century, enumerate only twenty-seven 
canons of the Council of Chalcedon ” (Doll. Hist. of Ch. ii. p. 252). Writing 
to the Empress Pulcheria, St. Leo had declared that he, by his apostolic 
authority, altogether quashed the canon in, question (Per auctoritatem beati Petri 
apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus, &c., Epist. cv. ©. 3); and the 
Patriarch Anatolius wrote to excuse himself, declaring that ‘‘the whole 
ground and confirmation of what had been done was reserved for your Blessedness” 
(Anatol. Epist. int. Leon. Ep.cvi.). “ It,” the 28th canon, ἐς was not the act of 
the CGEcumenical Council, but made after the Pope’s Legates had quitted the 
Church of St. Euphemia, and was subscribed by only 200 Bishops, a slender 
minority of the 600 or 630 who were assembled at Chalcedon.” See Dr. Husen- 
beth’s Faberism Exposed and Refuted (p. 199),—8 most able reply to Faber’s 
“ Difficulties of Romanism” (Pickering, London). 


78 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


St. Leo the Great :—“ These (Peter and Paul) O Rome, 
are they who have advanced thee to this glory, to be a holy 
nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal city; that, BY 
THE SEE OF BLESSED PETER, MADE THE HEAD OF THE 
UNIVERSE, thou mightest rule more widely by divine religion 
than by earthly empire” (Per sacram beati Petri sedem 
caput orbis effecta, latius presideres religione divina quam 
domitatione terrena. Serm. |xxxii. in Natal. Apost. Pet. et 
Paul, n. 1, ed. Ball.). “THE FIRST OF ALL THE ae 
THE HEAD... . THAT SEE WHICH THE LORD APPOINTED 
TO PRESIDE OVER THE REST” (Prima omnium Sedes,... 
quam ceteris omnium Dominus statuit presidere.  fzst. 
cxx. c.i. ad Theodoret. Episc. Cyr.). “Even amongst the most 
blessed Apostles, in likeness of honour there was a certain 
distinction of power; and whereas the election of all was 
equal, to one, nevertheless, was it given to be pre-eminent 
over the others. Out of which mould the distinction also 
among Bishops has arisen, and by a great ordering it was 
provided that all should not claim to themselves all things, 
but that in every province there should be one whose sen- 
tence should be accounted first amongst the brethren ; and 
others, again, constituted in the greater cities, should under- 
take a wider care, THROUGH WHOM THE CARE OF THE 
UNIVERSAL CHURCH SHOULD FLOW TOGETHER TO THE 
ONE SEE OF PETER, AND NO PART BE ANYWHERE AT VARI- 
ANCE WITH ITS HEAD” (Per quos ad unam Petri Sedem 
universalis Ecclesiz cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a suo 
capite desideret. Zpist. xiv. ad Anastas. Thessal. Eptse. 
c. τ} 

Victor of Vite, A.D. 480:—‘ The Roman Church, which 
‘s THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES” (Ecclesia Romana, 
que caput est omnium ecclesiarum. De Persecut. Afric. 
lib. iii. p. 682, Bibl. Max. viii.). 

Pope Felix III., A.D. 490: — “The Apostolic See, BY 
WHICH, BY CHRIST'S CONCESSION, THE DIGNITY OF ALL 
PRIESTS IS CONFIRMED” (Epist. v. Flavit. Ep. Constantinop. 
n.1). “The three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled 
at Nicea REFERRED THE CONFIRMATION AND AUTHORITY 


Supremacy of the See of Peter. 79 


OF MATTERS TO THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH” (Concil. Rom. 
ii, Labbe, iv. p. 1126). 

St. Gelasius, Pope, A.D. 492 :—‘‘ The canons themselves 
willed THE APPEALS OF THE WHOLE CHURCH TO BE 
REFERRED TO THE EXAMINATION OF THIS SEE, FROM IT 
THEY DECREED ALSO THAT NO APPEAL WHATEVER OUGHT 
TO BE MADE; AND THEREBY THAT IT JUDGED OF THE 
WHOLE CHURCH, AND THAT ITSELF PASSED UNDER THE 
JUDGMENT OF NONE. ... Timothy of Alexandria, Peter of 
Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, not one, but many, bearing the 
name of the priesthood, were deposed by the sole authority 
of the Apostolic See. . . . The canons cannot summon the 
Apostolic See to judgment. ... Therefore we are in no 
fear lest the Apostolic judgment be reversed, which both the 
voice of Christ and the tradition of the fathers, as also the 
authority of the canons support, in such wise that rather IT 
ALWAYS MAY JUDGE THE WHOLE CHURCH.” (Epazst, iv. Com- 
monitor ad Faustum, pp. 1169-1171, Labbe, iv.; and “2151. 
Rom. Pont. ed. Thiel, 1867, tom. i. p. 343, Zpzs¢.x.n. 5). “ THE 
FIRST SEE BOTH CONFIRMS EVERY SYNOD BY ITS AUTHO- 
RITY, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, to wit, 
of ITS SUPREMACY, WHICH, RECEIVED BY THE APOSTLE 
PETER FROM THE MOUTH OF THE LORD, THE CHURCH 
NEVERTHELESS SECONDING, IT BOTH ALWAYS HAS HELD 
AND RETAINS. ... We will not pass over in silence what 
every Church throughout the world knows, that THE SEE 
OF THE BLESSED APOSTLE PETER HAS THE RIGHT TO 
ABSOLVE FROM WHAT HAS BEEN BOUND BY THE SENTENCE 
OF ANY PRELATES WHATSOEVER, IN THAT IT HAS THE 
RIGHT OF JUDGING OF THE WHOLE CHURCH; NEITHER IS 
IT LAWFUL FOR ANY ONE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON ITS 
JUDGMENT, SEEING THAT THE CANONS HAVE WILLED 
THAT IT MAY BE APPEALED TO FROM ANY PART OF THE 
WORLD, BUT THAT FROM IT NO ONE BE PERMITTED TO 
APPEAL” (Cuncta per mundum novit ecclesia, quoniam quo- 
rumlibet sententiis ligata pontificum Sedes Β. Petri Apos- 
toli jus habeat resolvendi, utpote que de omni ecclesia 
fas habeat judicandi, neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare 


80 Supremacy of the See of Peter. 


judicio ; siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte canones 
appellari voluerint, ab illa autem nemo sit appellare per- 
missus, Epist. xiii. ad Episc. Dardan, p. 1200, Labbe ; and 
Thiel, Zpist. xxvi. ἢ. 5, tom. 1. p. 399). 

Council of Rome, A.D. 494 :--- The holy Roman Catholic 
and Apostolic Church has been RAISED ABOVE THE OTHER 
CHURCHES, NOT BY ANY SYNODAL DECREES, BUT FROM 
THE EVANGELIC VOICE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR HAS 
IT OBTAINED THE PRIMACY,—He saying, ‘Thou art Peter,” 
&c. (Sancta Romana, Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia nullis 
synodicis constitutis ceteris ecclesiis prelata est, sed evan- 
gelica voce Domini et Salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit, 
Tu es Petrus, inquientis, et super hanc petram, &e. Gelasit 
Decret. de Script. Canon. Edit. im Concil. Rom. an. 494. 
Denzinger’s Enchiridion, p. 41, ed. 1874). 

St Columbanus, A.D. 608, in his Epistle to Pope Boni- 
face IV., says :—“ We are Irish, inhabitants of the further- 
most part of the world, receiving nothing beyond the evan- 
gelic and apostolic doctrine. None of us has been a heretic, 
none a Jew, none a schismatic; but the faith, just as it was 
at first delivered by you, the successors, to wit, of the holy 
Apostles, is held unshaken. .. . Purity is to be reputed not 
to the stream, but to the fountain-head. . .. Weare, as I 
said before, bound to THE CHAIR OF PETER. For although 
Rome is great and illustrious, IT Is ONLY THROUGH THIS 
CHAIR THAT SHE IS GREAT AND BRIGHT AMONG US,... 
and if it can be said, on account of Christ’s two Apostles 
(Peter and Paul), . . . Youare almost heavenly, and ROME Is 
THE HEAD OF THE CHURCHES OF ALL THE WORLD, saving 
the singular prerogative of the place of the Lord’s resurrec- 
tion” (Fides, sicut a vobis primum sanctorum scilicet Apos- 
tolorum successoribus, tradita est, inconcussa tenetur... 
non rivo puritas, sed fonti reputanda est... . Nos enim, ut 
ante dixi, devincti sumus Cathedre S. Petri: licet enim 
Roma magna est et vulgata, per istam Cathedram tantum 
apud nos est magna et clara, .. . et Roma orbis terrarum 
caput est ecclesiarum salva loci dominic resurrectionis sin- 


Union with the See of Peter, etc. δῚ 


gulari prerogativa. Lpist. ad Bonif. Pap. pp. 352, 354, Gal- 
land, tom. xii.). 

In the Second General Council of Nice A.D. 787, the 
letters of Pope Hadrian to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, were readand approved. He says :—‘ Whose (Peter's) 
See SHINES FORTH IN PRIMACY OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, 
AND IS HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES OF GOD. Wherefore 
the same blessed Peter the Apostle, governing the Church 
by the command of the Lord, left nothing uncared for, but 
HELD EVERYWHERE, AND HOLDS, SUPREME AUTHORITY” (οὗ ὁ 
Opovos εις πασαν THY οἰκουμενην πρωτευων διαλαμπει, και κεφαλη 
πασων τῶν εκκλησιων του Θεου ὕπαρχει. . . . τῷ τοῦ κυριου 
προσταγματι ποιμαίνων την ἐκκλησιαν, . . . ἐκρατησε TAVTOTE καὶ 
κρατεῖ τὴν apynv. LEpist. ad Taras. Labbe, tom. vii. p. 125). 
Hadrian then requires Tarasius to adhere to “OUR APOS- 
TOLIC SEE, WHICH IS THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES OF 
GOD” (τῳ ἡμετερω ἀποστολίκω θρονω, ὁστις este κεφαλὴ παάσων 
των εκκλησίων Tov Θεου. 10... The whole Synod cried out in 
acclamation: “ The Holy Synod so believes, so is convinced, 
so defines.” 


3. The Roman Church teaches other Churches with Divine 
Authority—With It all other Churches must agree in Faith, 
since It is the Fountain of Truth for all Christians—It ts the 
Root and Womb of the Catholic Church—Communion with 
whose Bishop is Communion with the Catholic Church—By 
Communion with this Church of Rome, t.¢., with tts B shop, 
the Faithful throughout the World are preserved from Error, 
evince their Orthodoxy, and prove their Right to the Title of 
Catholics—In this Church Peter always Lives and Prestdes, 
and gives the Truth of Faith to those seeking tt, &c. 


St. Clement of Rome, Pope, A.D. 96:'—“ The Church 
of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at 


1 This is the date now assigned by the best critics to ST. CLEMENT'S EPISTLE 
10 THE CORINTHIANS, written by him in the name of the Roman Church (it 
being the ancient custom to assemble the clergy on occasions of great importance, 

F 


82 Union with the See of Peter 


Corinth. . . . Brethren, the sudden and unexpected dangers 
and calamities that have fallen upon us have, we fear, made 
us the more slow in our consideration of those things which 
you inquired of us; asalso of that wicked and detestable sedi- 
tion, so unbecoming the elect of God, which a few heady and 
self-willed men have fomented tosuch a degree of madness that 
your venerable and renowned name, so worthy of all men to 
be beloved, is greatly blasphemed thereby. . . . It isashame, 
my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy of your 
Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient 


»ἢ 


Church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be 
led into a sedition against its priests. And this report is 
come not only to us, but to those also that differ from us; 
inasmuch that the name of the Lord is blasphemed through 
your folly, and even ye yourselves are brought into danger 
by it... . Do ye, therefore, who laid the first foundation of 


and to act with their advice and concurrence ; also to identify the Bishop and his 
Church in such acts, according to the saying of St. Cyprian, that “he Church ts 
the people united with the priest and the flock following its pastor ; whence you are 
to know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the Bishop,” &c. 
Epist. \xix. ad Fupian.), in reply to an appeal from the Church of Corinth, and 
for the purpose of repressing the schism that had broken out in that Church. St. 
Irenceus says :—“ Under this Clement, then, there having happened no small 
dissension among the brethren who were at Corinth, THE CHURCH WHICH IS AT 
ROME WROTE A MOST POWERFUL LETTER (ικανωτατὴν Ὑραφην) TO THE CoRIN- 
rHIANS, GATHERING THEM TOGETHER TO PEACE, AND REPAIRING THEIR 
FAITH, AND ANNOUNCING THE TRADITION WHICH It HAD SO RECENTLY 
RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES” (Adv. Her. lib. iii. c. 3), Husebius says : 
__ «Of this Clement there is one acknowledged Epistle extant, a great and wonder- 
ful one, which he wrote as from the Church of the Romans to that of the Corin- 
thians. THIS WE KNOW WAS PUBLICLY READ IN MANY OF THE CHURCHES, 
ROTH IN FORMER TIMES AND IN OUR OWN; and that at that time a sedition 
disturbed those at Corinth, HEGESIPPUS is a most trustworthy witness” (7151. 
Eccles. lib. iii. c. 16). A still earlier writer, Dionysius of Corinth, speaks 
of THE CUSTOM OF READING PopE CLEMENT'S AND Pope SOTER’S EPISTLES 
PUBLICLY IN THE CHURCHES. ‘‘ To-day,” he says, in his Epistle to Pope 
Soter, ‘* we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your Epistle, 
in reading which we shall always have our minds stored with admonitions, as we 
shall also from that written unto us before by Clement” (42. Zused. iv. 23). 

The APPEAL of the Corinthians to the ROMAN Church was made, it should be 
observed, whilst the Apostle St. John was still living either at Patmos or Ephesus ; 
and it is of itself a remarkable evidence and acknowledgment of that ‘* MORE 
POWERFUL HEADSHIP” of the Roman Church of which St. Irenzeus speaks, and 
of that ‘‘ PRESIDENCY IN THE COVENANT OF LOVE ” which St. Ignatius had at a 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 83 


this sedition, submit yourselves unto your priests, and be 
instructed unto repentance, bending the knees of your hearts. 
Learn to be subject, laying aside all proud and arrogant 
boasting of your tongues ; for it is better for you to be found 
little, and approved in the sheepfold of Christ, than to seem 
to yourselves better than others, and be cast out of His 
fold.... IF’ ANY DISOBEY THE WORDS SPOKEN BY GOD 
THROUGH US, let them know that they will entangle them- 
selves in transgression and no small danger, but we shall be 
clear from this sin. ... . You will cause us joy and exultation 
if, OBEYING THE THINGS WRITTEN BY US THROUGH THE 
HOLY SPIRIT, you cut out the lawless passion of your 
jealousy, according to the intercession we have made for 
peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful 


still earlier period accounted as one of her prerogatives. See, on this subject, 
Mgr. FREPPEL’s Les Peres Apostoliques, p. 133 seq. 

ST. CLEMENT’s Epistle was, until lately, known only through a single MS.— 
the great ALEXANDRIAN MS,, in 4 vols. folio, (the three first vols. containing 
the whole of the Old Testament in Greek, and the fourth the New Testament 
with the two Epistles of Clement), which is said to have been written by Theckla, 
a noble Egyptian lady, about A.D. 350, and of which one leaf, containing about 
the tenth part of St. Clement’s Epistle, has been lost. Since the publication of 
the last edition of HEFELE’s Patres Apostolici, in 1875, “an entirely new autho- 
rity for the text of the Epistle has been gained by the discovery in the Library of 
the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmuti- 
lated text of the two Epistles ascribed to Clement. The discovery was made 
known, and the new authority first used in establishing the text, in a very careful 
and able edition of the Epistles by BRYENNIOs, Metropolitan of Serre, published 
in Constantinople at the end of 1875. . . . Besides filling up small lacunz in the 
text of the older MS., ἐξ supplies the contents of the entire leaf which has been lost,” 
and, except for the trifling omission of one or two words, ‘‘ we have the letter now 
as complete as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS.” (Dict. of Christ. Biog. 
and Liter. vol. i. pp. 557, 558). Shortly after this discovery it was announced 
that the University of Cambridge had procured by purchase a Syriac MS. con- 
taining a translation of the two Epistles of Clement. The Afpenadix to 
Professor LIGHTFOOT’s work on the Epistles of Clement of Rome contains 
the newly-recovered portion, with introduction, notes, and a translation of the 
whole Epistle. 

1 Referring to the two following passages, Dr. SALMON, the Regius Professor 
of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, whose translation has been adopted, says : 
‘© VERY NOTICEABLE IN THE NEW PART OF THE LETTER IS THE TONE OF 
AUTHORITY USED BY THE ROMAN CHURCH IN MAKING AN UNSOLICITED” (?) 
‘© INTERFERENCE WITH THE AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER CHURCH” (Dict. of Christ. 
Biog. and Liter. i. 558). 


84 Union with the See of Peter 


and discreet men, who have walked from youth to old age 
unblamably amongst us, who shall be witnesses between us 
and you. This have we done, that you may know that all 
our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace ; 
(Epist. i. ad Cor. c. 1, 47; 57: 58). 


St. Ignatius, A.D. 107, writes to “ the presiding” Church 
of Rome :—“I do not, as Peter and Paul, command you. . - - 
YE HAVE TAUGHT OTHERS. I would, therefore, that those 
things may be firmly established WHICH TEACHING YOU 
HAVE COMMANDED” (tp exkAnola ..- - Aris Kat προκαθηται 

ο΄ ἄλλους εδιδαζατε. Eyo Se θέλω, wa κἀκεινα βεβαια ἢ 
ἁ μαθητευοντες ἐντελλεσθε. . .᾿. Οὐχ ὡς Πετρος καὶ Παυλος 
διατασσομαι tw. LEpist. ad Rom. ἢ. 3, 4). 

St. Irencous, A.D. 178:—“ Wherefore, in every Church 
there is, for all who may wish to see what things are true, at 
hand to look unto, the tradition of the Apostles made mani- 
fest throughout the whole world; and we have it in our 
power to enumerate those who were by the Apostles instituted 
Bishops in the Churches, and the successors of those Bishops 
down to ourselves, who neither taught nor knew anything 
like the wild opinions of these men. For if the Apostles had 
known any hidden mysteries, which they taught apart and 
secretly from others to the perfect, they would have delivered 
them more especially to those to whom also they committed 
the Churches themselves. For they wished those to be very 
perfect and blameless in all things whom also they left as 
successors, delivering unto them their own post of government 
(quos et successores velinguebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterit 
tradentes), who, acting faithfully, great usefulness would be 
the result, but falling, a great calamity. 

“ But, as it would be a very long task to enumerate in such 
a volume as this the successions of all the Churches ; POINT- 
ING OUT THAT TRADITION WHICH THE GREATEST AND 
MOST ANCIENT AND UNIVERSALLY KNOWN CHURCH— 
FOUNDED AND CONSTITUTED AT ROME BY THE TWO MOST 
GLORIOUS APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL—DERIVES FROM THE 
APOSTLES, AND THAT FAITH ANNOUNCED TO (ALL) MEN, 
WHICH THROUGH THE SUCCESSION OF HER BISHOPS HAS 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 85 


COME DOWN TO US, WE CONFOUND ALL THOSE WHO IN 
ANY WAY, WHETHER THROUGH CAPRICE OR VAINGLORY, OR 
BLINDNESS OR PERVERSE OPINION, GATHER (or ASSEMBLE) 
OTHERWISE THAN IT BEHOVETH. FFOR WITH THIS CHURCH 
ON ACCOUNT OF HER MORE POWERFUL HEADSHIP (or SUP- 
REMACY), IT IS NECESSARY THAT EVERY CHURCH, THAT IS 
THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE DISPERSED, SHOULD AGREE 
(or BE IN COMMUNION); IN WHICH (IN COMMUNION WITH 
WHICH) CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESERVED BY THE 
FAITHFUL DISPERSED THAT TRADITION WHICH IS FROM 
THE APOSTLES” (c. 2). 

“The blessed Apostles, therefore, having founded and 
built up that Church, committed the sacred office of the 
Episcopate unto Linus, of whom Paul makes mention in his 
Epistlesto Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after 
him, in the third place from the Apostles, to Clement is 
allotted the Episcopacy.”! He gives the whole succession 
down to Eleutherus, who “now, in the twelfth place, holds 
the inheritance of the Episcopate from the Apostles ;” and 
concludes :—“ BY THIS SAME ORDER, AND BY THIS SAME 
SUCCESSION, BOTH THAT TRADITION WHICH IS IN THE 
CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES ‘AND THE PREACHING OF 
THE TRUTH HAVE COME DOWN TO US. AND THIS IS A 
MOST FULL DEMONSTRATION THAT IT IS ONE AND THE 
SAME LIFE-GIVING FAITH WHICH IS PRESERVED IN THE 
CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES, AND HANDED DOWN IN 
TRUTH” (Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine 
omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximz et 
antiquissime et omnibus cognite, a gloriosissimis duobus 


1 Thisis the order given also by HEGEsIPPUS, EUSEBIUS, and EPIPHANIUS, as 
well as in the ancient CANON OF THE RoMAN Mass (“ Lini, Cleti, Clementis ”} 
which expresses the earliest traditions of the Roman Church. The Cueosticis 
oF ST. ΗΙΡΡοιυτῦϑβ, as before remarked, ‘‘ counts Peter as first Bishop of Rome” 
(Dict of Christ. Biog. and Liter. i. p. 577)» but reckons Clement as his second suc- 
cessor (72. p. 554), which order was adopted by OPTATUS, AUGUSTINE, and 
several other Latin Fathers. DOLLINGER remarks that the consentient statements 
of the first-named writers—confirmed as they aré by the ancient Canon of the 
Roman Mass—“ are of the most reliable kind,” and ‘‘infinitely more trust- 
worthy ” than the lists in which Clement is placed before Cletus (First Age of 
the Church, 2a edit. p. 298. See also Dict of Christ. Biog. and Liter. p. 555). 


86 Union with the See of Peter 


Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romz fundate et constitute 
Ecclesiz eam, quam habet ab Apostolis, traditionem et an- 
nunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum 
pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus omnes 
eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per sibi placentiam vel vanam 
gloriam vel per cecitatem et malam sententiam, preterquam 
oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter poten- 
tiorem principalitem necesse est omnem convenire* Eccle- 
siam, hoc est, qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, 
qui sunt undique, conservata est ea que est ab Apostolis 


traditio. Θεμέλιωσαντες ovv Kal οἰκοδομησαντες οἱ μακαρίοι 
αποστολοῖ THY εκκλησιαν, Δινῳ την της ἐπισκοπής λειτουργίαν 
ἐνεχείρισαν. - - Tp αὐτῃ taker καὶ TH αὐτὴ διαδοχῇ NTE απὸ τῶν 
αποστολων εν TH εκκλησιᾳ παραδοσις Kat TO τῆς αληθειας 
κηρυγμα κατηντηκεν εἰς nuas. Etest plenissima hee ostensio, 
unam eandemque vivicatricem fidem esse, que in Ecclesia ab 
Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata et tradita in veritate. 
Adv. Her. \ib. iii. c. 2, 3; et a. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. \ib. v. 


c. 6). 
“In order to confound all heretics,” says MASSUET, “ Iren- 


seus deemed it sufficient to appeal to the RoMAN Church's 


1 With regard to the word ‘* CONVENIR E,”” which has been rendered *‘ RESORT 
To,” ** AGREE WITH,” “BE IN COMMUNION WITH,” it may be observed that 
Irenzeus uses a similar phrase in lib. iii. c. 40 :—** Qui non CONCURRUNT ad 
Ecclesiam.” Convenire is used by the Vet. Interp. for συμφωνειν (Acts xv. 15) in 
lib. iii, c. 12, ἢ. 143 and again, in the sense of **TO HARMONISE,” ‘* AGREE 
WITH,” in lib. iv. c. 35. That in the passage above quoted, St. Irenzeus spoke 
of the necessity of other Churches concurring in doctrine and faith with the 
Roman Church, is admitted by the Protestant SALMASIUS :—‘* Necesse est, dicit, 
omnem Ecclesiam convenire ad Romanam, id est, ut Greece locutus fuerat Irenzeus, 
cupBawew προς THY TWP Ῥωμαιων εκκλήησιαν, quod significat J CONVENES ET 
CONCORDARE IN REBUS FIDEI ET DOCTRINZ CUM RoMANA ECCLESIA (De 
Primatu Pape, © 5, P- 65). With Salmasius agree the German Protestants 
THIERSCH and STIEREN. Compare St. Ambrose’s words cited in p. 94- 

The words “in qué (Ecclesid)” are rendered by MOHLER “for through it,” 
and by DOLLINGER (715. of Ch, Eng. trans. i. 256) “in which communion. 
HERGENROTHER remarks that the word ** iz” is to be taken in the ecclesiastical 
sense of the Greek preposition ἐν, and can thus be rendered ‘‘ zn her bosom,” τ in 
her communion,” or “through her,” “ by virtue of her”? Compare the Biblical 
and Patristic expressions εν κυρίῳ, εν θεῳ, εν τουτῳ κρατευνεται, &c. The trans- 
lator of Irenzeus often uses “ἐπ᾽ for “ per.” “Salutem in eo (Christo) dedit 
hominibus” (lib. 111. c. 12, 0. 4); ‘*Ut quod perdideramus in Adam, hoc in 
Christo reciperemus”’ (c. 18, ἢ, 1); ‘*In Christo universa benedictio” (lib. iv. 


ς. 21, ἢ. 3), ἃς. 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 87 


/ 


tradition, preserved therein by the unbroken succession of 
her Bishops; rightly judging that, by. the ascertainment. of 
HER tradition, the tradition and doctrine of all other 
Churches would forthwith be at once learned also. For, 
since the Roman Church is the chief, head, and first of 
all; the greatest, and most ancient, and most renowned ; 
founded by St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and his 
companion St. Paul; the Church which by its own right pre- 
sides and rules over all the rest, and with whtch it 1s necessary 
that ALL the faithful should be united by the bonds of one and 
the same faith and communion ; it is thence clearly evident 
that the faith and tradition of the other Churches could not 
but be in accordance with that of the Roman Church. 
Passing by, therefore, the Episcopal successions in all the 
Churches of the world, it is enough to recount the unbroken 
succession in that Church only, and to declare the Apostolic 
tradition which has flowed down to us through that channel, 
in order that, by the common judgment and tradition of ALL 
the Churches—bound as they are to agree with this Roman 
Church—all heretics may be utterly vanquished.” 

It is quite incredible that St. Irenzeus should have attributed 
the superiority of the Roman Church, and her freedom from 
error, to “the circumstance of the pure tradition being 
guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse 
of the faithful from all countries” (JANUS, p. 87); for in this 
case Rome must have learnt her doctrine from other 
Churches, not other Churches from Rome; and, again, the 
heretics, against whom he was arguing, would certainly not 
have granted that Rome must have—and still less “ ALWAYS” 
have—the true Apostolic tradition, because of the fortuitous 
concourse of Christians to the imperial city. “In Rome,” 
says MILMAN, “every heresy, almost every heresiarch, found 
welcome reception... . They were all strangers and foreigners ; 
not one of all these systems originated in Rome, in Italy, or 
in Africa. On all these opinions the BISHOP of Rome was 
almost compelled to sit in judgment; he must receive or 
reject, authorise or condemn; he was a proselyte whom it 


88 Union with the See of Peter 


would be the ambition of all to gain.”* (fist. of Lat. Christ. Ὁ. 
i. c. 1, vol. i. pp. 38, 39). If, then, heretics, as well as Catholics, 
thus flocked to Rome, what security would such a concourse 
afford that the Roman Church would not be infected with 
their errors? It is, evidently, to the tradition and faith of 
the BisHops? of Rome, endowed with special prerogatives, 


1 Tertullian, himself a Montanist, shows very clearly what importance he 
attached to Pope Victor's recognition of Montanus, when he says of Praxeas: 
‘‘ This man prevailed on the Bishop of Rome, who was on the point of acknow- 
ledging (jam agnoscentem) the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, 
and BY THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT BRINGING IN PEACE TO THE CHURCHES 
oF ASIA AND PHRYGIA (et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asize et Phrygiz 
inferentem), . . . to revoke the letters of peace already sent out,” ἄς. (Adv. 
Praxeam, c. 1). 

2 «Tt was natural,” says Dr. Newman, ‘for Christians to direct their course 
in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, and, as it were, endemic, 
tradition, while it was fresh and strong ; but in proportion as it languished, or 
was broken in particular places, did ‘t become necessary 20 fall back upon its 
special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of Peter” (Essay on 
Develop. of Doct. p. 167). ‘In the Catholic Church it was always an article of 
faith that our Lord, by the assistance and guidance of His Holy Spirit, pre- 
served the whole Church, in her collective capacity, from falling into error in her 
dogmatic teaching. But it was also a point of belief, which may be traced up to 
the Apostolic age, that in the administration of this teaching authority, the See 
of St. Peter held a supreme office ; that ‘t was the centre of ecclesiastical opera- 
tions, if we may use such a term; that apart from it there would be no genuine 
orthodoxy, no true Catholicity ; and that in all the great controversies which from 
time to time divided the Christian world, the most crucial test of truth was the 
adherence to any dogma by the See of Peter” (Union Review, May 1875). 
Tertullian says :-- Now what the Apostles preached, i.e., what Christ 
revealed unto them, I will here also rule must be proved in no other way than by 
those same Churches which the Apostles themselves founded, themselves by 
preaching to them, as w ell wivé voce, as men say, as by epistles afterwards. If 
these things be so, it is in like degree manifest that all doctrine which AGREES 
WITH THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES, the wombs and originals of the faith, must be 
accounted true, as without doubt containing that which the Churches have 
received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but 
that every doctrine must be judged at once to be false which savoureth things 
contrary to the truth of the Churches, and of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of 
God. . . . WE HAVE COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES BECAUSE 
WE HAVE NO DOCTRINE DIFFERING FROM THEM. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE OF 
TRUTH ” (Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. 
Hoc est testimonium veritatis. De Prescript. Haret, c. 21). ‘* Come now, thou 
that wilt exercise thy curiosity to better purpose in the business of thy salvation, 
run over the Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs of the Apostles to 
this very day preside over their own places, in which their own authentic 
writings are read, echoing the voice, and making the face of each present. Is 
Achaia near to thee? thou hast Corinth... . But if. thou art near to Italy, thou 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 89 


and empowered to require the assent and obedience of all, 
that Irenzeus appeals as the chief rule and standard of ortho- 
doxy for all Christians ; and therefore, after giving a list of 
her Bishops down to his own time, he concludes: “ By THIS 
SAME ORDER, AND BY THIS SAME SUCCESSION, have the 
tradition of the Apostles and the preaching of the truth 
come down to us. And ¢his is a most full demonstration that 


it is ome and the same faith which ἐς preserved in the 
Church,’ &c+ 


“St. Irenzeus,” says Hergenréther, “does not appeal to the 
journeys to Rome, but to the succession of Bishops. And as 


hast ROME, WHENCE WE ALSO HAVE AN AUTHORITY AT HAND. THAT 
CHURCH—HOW HAPPY !—_ON WHICH THE APOSTLES POURED OUT ALL THEIR 
DOCTRINE WITH THEIR BLOOD, . . . LET US SEE WHAT SHE HATH LEARNED, 
WHAT TAUGHT, WHAT TOKENS OF DOCTRINE SHE HAS SENT TO THE CHURCHES 
oF AFRICA” (Habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas presto est. Ista 
quam felix Ecclesiz ! Cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profude- 
runt . . . Videamus quid didicerit, quid docuerit, quid cum Africanis Ecclesiis 
contessesarit. /d. c. 36). ‘‘ Let them (the heretics) make known the origins 
of their Churches, let them unroll the catalogue of their Bishops, so coming 
down by succession from the beginning, that their first Bishop had for his author 
(ordainer) and predecessor some one of the Apostles, or of apostolic men, so he 
were one that continued steadfast with the Apostles. For in this manner do the 


. Apostolic Churches reckon their origin (or their registertes of succession) ; as the 


Church of the Smyrnzans recounts that Polycarp was placed there by John, as 
that of the Romans does that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter ; 
just as the rest also show those whom, being appointed by the Apostles to the 
Episcopate, they have as transmitters of the Apostolic seed. Let the heretics 
counterfeit something like this” (/0. c. 32). Like Irenzus and Tertullian, SS. 
OpraTus, AUGUSTINE, and EPIPHANIUS, when writing against heretics and 
schismatics, appeal to the succession of Bishops in the ROMAN See, of whom they 
give complete catalogues, down to their own contemporaries. ST. EPIPHANIUS 
concludes in words similar to those of Irenzeus :-—‘* And let no one wonder that 
we have thus diligently gone through each of these matters; for dy means of these 
the manifest truth ts for ever pointed out” (Και μη τις θαυμασῃ ore ἑκαστα οὕτως 
axpiBws διηλθομεν᾽ δια γαρ τουτῶν ἀεὶ TO cages δεικνυται. Adv. Her. n. 27). 

1 With this passage of Irenzeus should be compared another, evidently having 
reference to it, in lib. iv. ο. 43:—“* It behoves us to obey those pastors who hold 
succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, WITH THE EPISCOPAL 
SUCCESSION, have received the sure grace of truth, according to the good-will of 
the Father” (qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum .. . acce- 
perunt). ‘But the rest, WHO DEPART FROM THE PRINCIPAL SUCCESSION ” (qui 
a principali successione absistunt), in whatever place they assemble” (colligunt : 
comp. the words in ili. 3, ‘© Preeterquam oportet colligunt,” and St. Jerome’s 
words to Pope Damasus : ‘‘Quicunque Zecum non colligit, spargit”), “‘we ought 
to hold suspected as heretics, and of evil opinion, or as schismatics,” &c. 


90 Union with the See of Peter 


it would be too long to number the succession of Bishops in 
all the Churches, he gives a short and sufficient way of pro- 
ceeding ; for he says that, to put false teachers to shame, it 
suffices to ‘declare the tradition received from the Apostles 
by the greatest Church, the most ancient, the most conspicu- 
ous, and founded and established at Rome by the two most 
glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to declare the faith 
announced to men by this Church, coming to us even by the 
succession of Bishops.’ His argument is as follows: If the 
faith of the Roman Church has remained pure, the faith of 
other Churches must have remained so. For all Churches 
universally acknowledge the duty of remaining in harmony 
with the Church of Rome; and if we know the faith of the 
Roman Church, we know that of all others. Finally, after 
enumerating the successors of St. Peter, he says that through 
this succession! the doctrine of the Apostles has reached us, 
and that we have by it the fullest assurance that the ancient 
faith will continue unchanged” (Cath. Church and Christ. 
State, Eng. trans. vol. i. p. 96). 

It may be added, that St. Irenzus himself illustrates his 
statement, regarding the Roman Church’s headship and 
authority over other Churches, by referring to the exercise of 
her prerogatives in regard to the far distant and Apostolic 
Church of THE CORINTHIANS, to which, under the circum- 
stances already detailed, “The Church which is at Rome,” 
he says, “wrote a most powerful letter, GATHERING THEM 
TOGETHER TO PEACE, AND REPAIRING THEIR FAITH, AND 
ANNOUNCING THE TRADITION WHICH IT HAD SO RECENTLY 
RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES” (Επεστείλεν ἡ εν Ῥωμῃ 


1 One of the latest Protestant writers on the life and writings of Irenzus, 
ZIEGLER, says: “Τὸ the mind of Irenzus, it is the Episcopate which sanctions 
the rule of faith, not vice vers@. With him, as with Cyprian, the highest eccle- 
siastical office is inseparable from orthodox doctrine. . . . He makes the preser- 
vation of tradition; and the presence of the Holy Ghost with the Church, depen- 
dent upon the Bishops, who in legitimate succession represent the Apostles, and 

. this manifestly because he wants at any price to have a guarantee for the 
unity of the visible Church. This striving after unity appears in the most striking 
way in that passage (iii. 3, 2) where he passes, as if in a prophetic spirit, beyond 
himself, and anticipates the Papal Church of the future” (Ziegler, /rendus der 
Bischof von Lyon, Berlin, 1871). See Anglicanism and the Fathers, p. 7. 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. QI 


ἐκκλησια ἱκανωτατην γραφην τοις Κορινθιοις, εἰς ειἰρηνην συμβι- 
βααζουσα αὕτους, Kat avaveovoa τὴν πίστιν αὐτων, καὶ NY νεωστι 
aro των αποστολων παραδοσιν εἰλήφει. Ap. Euseb, List. 
Eccles. \ib. ν. ς. 6). 

Very similar to the “2 gud semper,” &c., of Irenzeus (see 
n. in p. 86) is the expression of 

St. Optatus, of Milevis :—“ That IN THAT ONE CHAIR 
(established by Peter, the head of all the Apostles, in Rome) 
UNITY MIGHT BE PRESERVED BY ALL,. . . and that he might 
be at once condemned as a schismatic and a sinner who 
against that pre-eminent Chair should place another. There- 
fore, in that one chair; which is the first of the prerogatives, 
Peter sat first; to whom succeeded Linus; to Linus succeeded 
Clement.” He gives the whole succession down to “Siricius, 
who is at this day associated with us, WITH WHOM THE 
WHOLE WORLD IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH US IN THE ONE 
BOND OF COMMUNION, BY THE INTERCOURSE OF LETTERS 
OF PEACE” (Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma 
Petro primo Cathedram episcopalem esse collatam, in qua 
sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus, unde et Cephas 
appellatus est : 2 gud und Cathedré unitas ab omnibus serva- 
retur, ne ceteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent ; 
ut jam schismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem 
Cathedram alteram collocaret. Ergo Cathedram unicam, 
que est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit 
Linus, . . . Damaso Siricius, hodie qui noster est socius: 
cum quo nobiscum totus orbis commercio formatarum in una 
communionis societate concordat. De Schism. Donat. lib. ii. 
c. 2,3, pp. 76, 77, ed. Hurter). “Of the aforesaid prerogatives, 
then, THE CHAIR IS, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE FIRST, WHICH 
WE HAVE PROVED IS OURS THROUGH PETER, and this mark 
carries with it the ange/ (lawful bishop or jurisdiction). ... 
Understand, then, that you are ungodly children ; that you 
are branches broken off from the tree; that you are tendrils 
cut off from the vine; that you are a stream separated from 
the fountain-head. For a stream which is small and does 
not spring from itself cannot be a fountain source; nora 
lopped branch be a tree, since a tree flourishes resting on its 


92 Union with the See of Peter 


own roots, but a branch that is cut off withers. Seest thou, 
now, brother Parmenianus, . . . that thou hast fought against 
thyself? Whereas it has been proved that we are in the 
holy Catholic Church; .. . and THROUGH THE CHAIR OF 
PETER WHICH IS OURS, THROUGH IT THE OTHER PREROGA-~ 
TIVES ARE OURS ALSO” (Igitur de dotibus supradictis 
Cathedra est (ut diximus) prima, quam probavimus per 
Petrum nostram esse, que ducit ad se angelum. Ib. c. 6, 
p. 87. Probatum est nos esse in ecclesia sancta Catholica, 

. et per Cathedram Petri, que nostra est, per ipsam et 
ceteras dotes apud nos esse. Jd. c. 9, p. 91). Also of the 
celebrated 

Formula of Pope Hormisdas, which was subscribed, 
A.D. 519, by the Eastern Emperor, Patriarchs, and Bishops, 
and confirmed, A.D. 869, by the Fathers of the Highth General 
Council :—“IN THE APOSTOLIC SEE THE CATHOLIC RELI- 
GION HAS ALWAYS BEEN KEPT UNDEFILED AND HER HOLY 
DOCTRINE PROCLAIMED. Desiring, therefore, not to be in 
the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of 
that See, we hope that we may deserve to be IN THE ONE 
COMMUNION WITH YOU WHICH THE APOSTOLIC SEE 
PREACHES, IN WHICH IS THE ENTIRE AND TRUE SOLIDITY 
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION: promising also that the 
names of those who are cut off from the communion of the 
Catholic Church, THAT IS, NOT CONSENTIENT WITH THE 
APOSTOLIC SEE, shall not be recited during the sacred 
mysteries. This my profession, I have subscribed with my 
own hand, and delivered to you Hormisdas, the holy and 
venerable Pope of the city of Rome” (In sede Apostolica 
immaculata est semper servata religio, . . . Sequentes in 
omnibus Apostolicam sedem et pradicantes ejus omnia con- 
stituta, spero, ut in una communione vobiscum quam sedes 
Apostolica pradicat, esse merear, in qua est integra et 
verax Christiane religionis soliditas. orm. Hormisd. Epise. 
Orient, Prescript. Denzinger’s Enchirid. p. 42, ed. 1874). 

St. Cyprian calls Rome “The Chair of Peter and the 
ruling Church, WHENCE THE UNITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD 


HAS ITS SOURCE, AND TO WHICH HERETICAL PERFIDY 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 93 


CANNOT GAIN ACCESS” (Zpist. lix. ad Cornel.) V. supra p. 59. 
Writing to the same Pope, he says: “I exhorted all that 
went from hence (to Rome), that they should own and hold 
to THE ROOT AND MATRIX! OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” 
(Ut Ecclesiz Catholicee radicem et matricem agnoscerent et 
tenerent); and tells him that he had procured a general 
letter from the African Bishops “that they should all own 
HIM AND HIs COMMUNION, THAT IS, THE UNITY AND 
CHARITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” (Ut te universi 
college nostri et communicationem tuam id est\(Catholice 


ecclesiz unitatem pariter et caritatem probarent firmiter ac 
tenerent. Z/ist¢. xlv.ed. Baluz., et Ep. x\viii. p. 94, ed. Goldh.). 
In his epistle to Antonianus, he tells him that a letter was 
written to Pope Cornelius “to let him know that you were 
in HIS communion, THAT 15, IN THE COMMUNION OF THE 
CATHOLIC CHURCH” (Ut sciret te secum hoc est cum 
Catholica Ecclesia communicare.2 pist. lii. ed. Baluz. lv. 
p. 104, ed. Goldh.). 


1 ἐς ΤῊΕ ROOT AND THE MOTHER” (radicis et matris. frst. xlii. Baluz. 
xlv. Goldh.). Compare St. Augustine’s words to the Donatists :—‘* You 
know what the Catholic Church is, and what it is to be cut off from the vine: 
if there be any among you prudent, let them come, let them live on THE ROOT. 
_. « Come, my brethren, if you desire to be engrafted on the vine. It is a pity 
to see you thus lying lopped off from the tree. Number the Bishops from the 
very SEE OF PETER, and observe the succession of every father in that order : it 
is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not” (Ja Ps. Cont. Part. 
Donat.tom. ix. p. 49)- 

The IRISH Bishops, quoted by St. Cummian, in his Epistle on the Paschal 
question, A.D. 634, call Rome, “‘THE SOURCE OF OUR BAPTISM AND WISDOM Ὧ 
and that writer adds that, “in accordance with the Synodical decree, that when 
causes were of great moment they should be referred to the head of cities, our seniors 
judged it proper to send wise and humble men to Rome, AS CHILDREN TO THEIR 
MOTHER,” &c. (Velut natos admatrem. Z/pist. ad Sagzen. ap. Usher, Syllog. Epist. 

2 The Protestant historian of the Church, MOSHEIM, avows that the 
principles laid down by St. Irenzeus and St. Cyprian lead naturally to the 
admission of a ceritral authority, such as is ascribed to the See of Peter, and 
alleges that they were too simple-minded and short-sighted to understand the 
consequences! ‘‘ Cyprian and the rest cannot have known the corollaries 
which follow from their precepts about the Church. For no one is so blind as 
not to see that between a certain unity of the Universal Church, terminating in 
the Roman Pontiff, and such a community as we have described out of Irenzeus 
and Cyprian, there is scarcely so much room as between hall and chambers 
or between hand and fingers” (MosH. Dissert. Theologico-Hist. de Gallorum 


Appell, ad Concil, Univ. Ecc. ὅτε.) sec. xiii.). 


94 Union with the See of Peter 


St. Ambrose, in similar language, declares union with the 
Roman See to be union with the Catholic Church. Speak- 
ing of his brother Satyrus, who had arrived, after shipwreck, 
in a place of doubtful orthodoxy, he says :—“ He called the 
Bishop to him, and not accounting any grace true which was 
not of the true faith, he inquired of him whether he agreed 
with the CATHOLIC Bishops, THAT IS, WITH THE ROMAN 
CHURCH” (Percontatusque ex eo est, utrumnam cum Epis- 
copis Catholicis, hoc est cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret. 
De Excessa Frat. n. 46, tom. ii. p. 1126). “ From THIS Church ” 
(of Rome), as he elsewhere declares, “ THE RIGHTS OF VENER- 
ABLE COMMUNION FLOW UNTO ALL” (Inde enim in omnes 
venerandze communionis jura dimanant. Z7s?. xi. n. 4). 

St. Jerome :—‘“ What does he (Ruffinus) call his faith? 
That which is the strength of the ROMAN Church, or that 
which is in the volumes of Origen? IF HE ANSWER, ‘THE 
ROMAN,’ THEN ARE WE CATHOLICS, who have borrowed 
nothing from Origen’s error” (Fidem suam quam vocat ? 
Eamne, qua Romana pollet Ecclesia? ... Si Romanam 
responderit ergo Catholici sumus. Adv. Ruffin. i. 4, tom. ii. 
p. 461). To Demetriade he says: “When you were a little 
child, and Bishop Anastasius of holy and blessed memory 
ruled the Roman Church, a fierce tempest from parts of the 
East tried to defile the simplicity of that faith which was 
praised by the voice of the Apostle. But that man of the 
wealthiest poverty and of Apostolic solicitude at once struck 
down the noxious head and silenced the sibilant mouth of 
that hydra. And because I have learnt that, in certain 
places, the venomous plants still live and put forth shoots, I 
think that I ought to give you this warning, that YOU HOLD 
FAST THE FAITH OF HOLY INNOCENT, WHO IS BOTH THE 
SUCCESSOR AND THE SON OF THE AFORESAID MAN, AND 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHAIR ; NOR, HOWEVER PRUDENT AND 
WISE YOU MAY SEEM TO YOURSELF, RECEIVE ANY STRANGE 
DOCTRINE” (Illud te pio caritatis affectu premonendum 
puto, ut S. Innocentii, qui Apostolic Cathedre successor 
est, teneas fidem; nec peregrinam, quatenus tibi prudens 
callidaque videaris, doctrinam recipias. 2151. cxxx. ad 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 95 


Demetriad. n. 16). Writing to Pope Damasus, he says: 
“ Since the East tears into pieces the Lord’s coat, and foxes 
lay waste the vineyard of Christ, so that among broken cis- 
terns, which hold no water, it is difficult to understand where 
is the sealed fountain and the enclosed garden: therefore 
have I thought that I should consult THE CHAIR OF PETER, 
AND THE FAITH PRAISED BY THE MOUTH OF THE APOSTLE. 
_.. Wherefore, though your greatness terrifies me, yet your 
kindness invites me. . . . Let us speak without offence; I 
court not the Roman height ;! I speak with the successor of 
the fisherman, and the disciple of the cross. I, following 
none as the first but Christ, AM LINKED IN COMMUNION 
WITH THY BLESSEDNESS, THAT IS, WITH THE CHAIR OF 
PETER. UPON THAT ROCK I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH 
IS BUILT. WHOSO SHALL EAT THE LAMB OUTSIDE THIS 
HOUSE IS PROFANE. IF ANY BE NOT IN THE ARK OF 
NOAH, HE WILL PERISH WHEN THE DELUGE PREVAILS. ... 
I know not Vitalis, Miletius I reject, I am ignorant of 
Paulinus. WHOSO GATHERETH NOT WITH THEE, SCAT- 
TERETH, THAT IS, HE WHO IS NOT OF CHRIST, IS OF 
ANTICHRIST” (Ideo mihi Cathedram Petri, et fidem Apos- 
tolico ore laudatam, censui consulendam. . . . Tanquam 
icitur tui me terreat magnitudo, invitat tamen humanitas. 
_.. Facessat invidia: Romani culminis recedat ambitio: 
cum successore piscatoris, et discipulo crucis loquor. Ego, 
nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudini tuz, id 
est, Cathedrze Petri, communione consocior: super illam 
petram zdificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicumque extra hanc 
domum agnum comederit profanus est. Si quis in arca Noe 
non fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio. .. . Non novi Vitalem, 
Miletium respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicumque tecum non 
colligit, spargit:* hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi 
est. Epist. xv. ad Damas. tom. i. p. 38). 


1 “Envy avaunt ; away with the pride of the topmost dignity of Rome” 


(Waterworth’s Faith of Cath. ii. p. 78). 

2 Comp. St. Cyprian’s words: ‘* There is one God, and one Christ, and 
one Church, and one Chair, founded by the voice of the Lord upon a rock. . εν 
Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth” (Cathedra una, super petram Domini 


voce fundata. . . . Quisquis alibi collegerit, spargit. List. xl. p. 85, ed. Goldh.). 


96 Union with the See of Peter 


St. Peter Chrysologus :—“ Blessed Peter, who LIVES AND 
PRESIDES IN HIS OWN SEE, GIVES THE TRUE FAITH TO 
THOSE WHO SEEK IT. For we, in our solicitude for truth 
and faith, CANNOT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ROMAN 
CHURCH, HEAR CAUSES OF FAITH” (Zpist. ad Eutech.). See 
context and note in p. 56. 

St. Augustine and other African Bishops, writing to 
Pope Innocent I. to solicit his confirmation of two Councils 
(of Carthage and Milevis), in which the Pelagian heresy had 
been condemned, say: “ We do not pour back our stream/et 
for the purpose of increasing your great FOUNTAIN ; pet... 
we wish it to be decided by you WHETHER OUR STREAM, 
HOWEVER SMALL, FLOWS FORTH FROM THAT SAME HEAD OF 
RIVERS WHENCE COMES YOUR OWN ABUNDANCE; and by 
your answers to be consoled respecting our common partici- 
pation of grace” (Non enim rivulum nostrum tam largo 
fonti angendo refundimus, sed . . . utrum etiam noster licet 
exiguus ex eodem quo etiam tuus abundans emanet capite 
fluentorum, hoc a te probari volumus, tuisque rescriptis .. . 
consolari. pést. clxxvii. n. 19). 

Pope Innocent, in his reply, A.D. 416, praises the COUNCIL 
oF CARTHAGE, that, “keeping to the precedents of ancient 
tradition, and mindful of the discipline of the Church, you 
have, in your examination of the things of God,... estab- 
lished in an undeniable manner the firmness of your religion, 
no less now in consulting (Us), than when you previously 
passed sentence ; approving, as you have done, of a reference 
to our judgment, KNOWING WHAT IS DUE TO THE APOSTOLIC 
SEE (scientes quid Apostolicae Sedi debeatur), since all We 
who are set in this place desire to follow that Apostle from 
whom the very Episcopate and all the authority of this title 
sprung (a quo ipse Episcopatus et tota auctoritas nominis hujus 
emersit). Following whom, we both know how to condemn 
what is evil, and to approve of what is commendable. And 
this, too, that, guarding by your priestly office the institutions 
of the Fathers, ye resolve that these regulations should not 
be trodden under foot, which they, in pursuance of no human 
but A DIVINE sentence, have decreed, viz., that whatever was 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 97 


being carried on, although in the most distant and remote 
provinces, SHOULD NOT BE ACCOUNTED AS TERMINATED 
UNTIL IT HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SEE; BY 
THE FULL AUTHORITY OF WHICH THE JUST SENTENCE 
SHOULD BE CONFIRMED, AND THAT THENCE ALL OTHER 
CHURCHES MIGHT DERIVE (THAT THEY MAY PROCEED, LIKE 
AS ALL WATERS, FROM THEIR OWN PARENT SPRING, AND 
THE PURE STREAMS OF AN UNCORRUPTED FOUNTAIN-HEAD 
MAY FLOW THROUGHOUT THE DIVERS REGIONS OF THE 
WHOLE WORLD) WHAT TO ORDER, WHOM TO CLEANSE,” &c. 
(Quod illi non humana, sed divina decrevere sententia, ut 
quidquid quamvis de disjunctis remotisque provinciis agere- 
tur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad hujus Sedis notitiam 
perveniret: ut tota hujus auctoritate justa que fuerit pro- 
nunciatio firmaretur; indeque sumerent cetere Ecclesiz 
(velut de natali suo fonte aque cuncte procederent, et per 
diversas totius mundi regiones puri latices capitis incorrupti 
manarent) quid precipere, quos abluere, &c. Epzst. xxix. 
Episc. Concil. Carth. Galland, viii. p. 599). 

To the COUNCIL OF MILEVIS he says :—* Diligently, 
therefore, and congruously do you consult the secret treasures 
(arcana) of the Apostolic dignity (that dignity, 1 mean, on 
which, beside those things that are without, the care of all 
the Churches falls) as to what judgment is to be passed on 
doubtful matters; following therein the form of the ancient 
rule, which, you know as well as I, has been preserved 
always in the whole world (quam toto semper ab orbe 
mecum nostis esse servatam).... You know that, THROUGH- 
OUT ALL THE PROVINCES, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ALWAYS 
EMANATE FROM THE APOSTOLIC SPRING. ESPECIALLY, AS 
OFTEN AS MATTERS OF FAITH ARE UNDER DISCUSSION, I 
AM OF OPINION THAT ALL OUR BRETHREN AND FELLOW- 
BISHOPS OUGHT ONLY TO REFER TO PETER, THAT IS TO THE 
AUTHOR OF THEIR NAME AND HONOUR, even as your 
affection has now referred, for what may benefit all Churches 
in common throughout the whole world. For the authors of 
these evils must needs be more cautious, on seeing them- 


selves, upon the report of two Synods, SEPARATED FROM 
G 


οϑ Union with the See of Peter 


THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH BY THE DECREE OF OUR 
SENTENCE. .. . Wherefore we do, by the authority of the 
Apostolic power, declare Ccelestius and Pelagius... deprived 
of the communion of the Church” (Scientes quod per omnes 
provincias de apostolico fonte petentibus responsa semper 
emanent. Presertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror 
omnes fratres et coepiscopos nostros nonnisi ad Petrum, id 
est, sui nominis et honoris auctorem referre debere, velut 
nunc retulit vestra dilectio, quod per totum mundum possit 
ecclesiis omnibus in commune prodesse, ὅς. Epist. xxx. ad 
Conc. Milev. n. 2, 6, pp. 602, 603). 

It was in reference to these declarations of Pope Innocent 
that St. Augustine declared :-—* HE ANSWERED TO ALL AS 
WAS RIGHT, ANDAS IT BECAME THE PRELATE OF THE APOS- 
TOLIC SEE” (ad omnia 1116 rescripsit, eodem modo, quo fas 
erat atque oportebat Apostolice Sedis Antistitem. pzs?. 
clxxxvi. n. 2, p. 997); and again -—“ Already (the decisions 
of) two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See ; whence 
also replies have been received. THE CAUSE IS ENDED, 
would that the error may presently terminate likewise” (Inde 
rescripta venerunt: causa finita est! Serm. cxxxi. ἢ. 10, 
p. 930). See the remarks of MILMAN and NEANDER in 
note to p. 63. 

Three Councils of Africa, in their Synodical letter sent 
to Pope Theodore, and read in the Council of Rome under 
Martin I., A.D. 646 :—“ No one can doubt that THERE IS IN 
THE APOSTOLIC SEE A GREAT UNFAILING FOUNTAIN, POUR- 
ING FORTH WATERS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS ; WHENCE RICH 
STREAMS PROCEED, BOUNTIFULLY IRRIGATING THE WHOLE 
CHRISTIAN WORLD ;? to which See also, in honour of blessed 


1 “Sr, AUGUSTINE, who so often appeals to the ordzs terrarum, sometimes 
adopts a more prompt criterion. He tells certain Donatists to whom he writes, 
that the Catholic Bishop of Carthage * was able to make light of the thronging 
multitude of his enemies, when he found himself by letters of credence joined 
both to the Roman Church, in which ever had flourished the principality of the 
Apostolic See, and to the other lands whence the gospel came to Africa itself’ ” 
(Zpist. xiii. n. 7). Newman’s Essay on Develop. p. 280. 

2 St. Columbanus, speaking for the EARLY IRISH CHURCH, says to 
Pope Boniface IV. :—‘‘ Our purity is to be reputed not to the stream, but to THE 


A Necessary Test of Orthodoxy. 99 


Peter, the decrees of the Fathers gave special veneration in 
searching out the things of God, which ought by all means to 
be carefully examined ; and above all, and justly, by THE 
Aposro_ic HEAD OF ΒΙΒΗΟΡΒ (presulum vertice Apostolico), 
whose care from of old it is, as well to condemn evils as to 
commend the things that are to be praised. For by the 
ancient discipline it is ordained THAT WHATSOEVER BE 
DONE, EVEN IN PROVINCES REMOTE AND AFAR OFF, SHALL 
NEITHER BE TREATED OF NOR ACCEPTED, UNLESS IT BE 
FIRST BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR AUGUST 
SEE, SO THAT A JUST SENTENCE MAY BE CONFIRMED BY ITS 
AUTHORITY, AND THAT THE OTHER CHURCHES MAY THENCE 
RECEIVE THE ORIGINAL PREACHING AS FROM ITS NATIVE 
SOURCE, AND THAT THE MYSTERIES OF SAVING FAITH 
MAY REMAIN IN UNCORRUPT PURITY THROUGHOUT THE 
VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE WORLD” (Magnum et indificientem 
omnibus Christianis fluenta redundantem apud Apostolicam 
Sedem consistere fontem nullus ambigere potest, de quo 
rivuli prodeunt affluenter, universam largissime irrigantes 
orbem terrarum. ... Antiquis enim regulis sancitum est, ut 
quidquid quamvis in remotis, vel in longinquo positis agere- 
tur provinciis, non prius tractandum vel accipiendum sit, 
nisi ad notitiam almz Sedis vestre fuisset deductum, ut 
hujus auctoritate justa quz fuisset pronunciatio, firmaretur, 
indeque sumerent cetere Ecclessiz velut de natali suo fonte 
predicationis exordium, et per diversas totius mundi regiones 
puritatis incorrupte maneant fidei sacramenta salutis.’ 
Labbe, Conci/. tom. viii. p. 131, ed. Venet. 1729). 


FOUNTAIN HEAD” (non enim rivo puritas, sed fonti reputanda est. Epist. ad 
Bonif. p. 352, Galland, xii.). He calls Rome ‘‘ THE PRINCIPAL SEE OF THE 
ORTHODOX FAITH” (fidei orthodox sedem principalem. 70. p. 353). 

1 A host of testimonies from later writers will be found in the works of BAL- 
LERINI, SCHRADER, and others. It may suffice to quote here the following :— 

Alcuin :—‘‘ That he may not be found to be a schismatic or non-Catholic, 
LET HIM FOLLOW THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN 
CHURCH ; - - . THAT THE MEMBERS BE NOT SEPARATED FROM THEIR HEAD: 
that the bearer of the keys of the heavenly kingdom may not reject them as hav- 
ing deviated from his doctrines” (Alc. Zpist. 1xx). 

St. Bernard :—‘‘It behoves us to make known to your Apostleship all the 
dangers and scandals that spring up in the kingdom of God, especially such as 


100 Union with the See of Peter. 


concern faith ; for 1 think it right that the wounds of the faith should there in the 
first place be healed, WHEN FAITH CAN KNOW NO DEFECT. FoR THIS IS THE 
PREROGATIVE OF THAT SEE.” rol. Epist. cxcviii. ad Jnnoc. ii. cont, error. 
Abela rd. 

Sergius, Metropolitan of Cyprus. (See p. 66, note.) 

Theodore the Studite calls the Roman See “the See of the Coryphzus, 
the See IN WHICH CHRIST HAS DEPOSITED THE KEYS OF FAITH, AND FROM 
WHICH WE ARE TO RECEIVE THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH” (κἀάκειθεν [απο τὴς 
Pwuns] το acgades δεχεσθω της πιστεως. (See Zpist. xiii. ad Naucrat. Migne, 
vol. xcix. p. 1281, Zpist. cxxix. ad Leon. p. 1420). 


PAPAL TITLES AND PREROGATIVES. 


-ῤ-ῤ΄--.--- 


111. 


THE following are some of the chief Titles and Prerogatives 
ascribed to the ROMAN PONTIFFS in the early ages of the 


Church :— 


Successor of the Fisherman'\—Her of Peter's Administra- 
tion2?—Vicar of Peter—Holding the S uccession of Peter— 
Peter's Successor in Order, and Holder of Fits Place®—Constt- 


1 St. Jerome, A.D. 390 :—“ Cum SUCCESSORE PISCATORIS loquor” 
(Epist. xv. ad Pap. Damasum.). 

2S. Siricius, a.D. 386 (Zpist. i. Himer. Galland, vii. p. 533). 
Vide supra, p. 57- 

8 Bishops of Spain, a.D. 440 :—* The most blessed Peter, the 
supremacy of whose VICAR, as it is eminent, so is it to be feared and 
loved by all” (cujus vicarii principatus sic ut eminet, ita metuendus 
est ab omnibus et amandus. ust. Episc. Tarracon. Hilario, col. 
1033, Labbe, tom. iv.). St. Cyprian, .D. 250, speaks of “ the 
place of (Pope) Fabian, that is, THE PLACE OF Peter” (Fabiani 
locus, id est, locus Petri. Z#ist. lv. ed. Goldh.). Firmilian, A.D. 
257, says of Pope Stephen :—“ Se SUCCESSIONEM PETRI TENERE 
contendit . . . PER SUCCESSIONEM CATHEDRAM PETRI HABERE 56 
predicat” (Zpist. farm. int. Epist. S. Cypr.). In the General 
Council of Ephesus, 4-D. 431, Pope Ccelestine is called 
ἐς PereR’s SUCCESSOR IN ORDER (xara ταξιν ὁ διαδοχος) AND HOLDER 
OF HIS PLACE” (4{,. iil. p. 625, Labbe, tom. iii. et tom. 1]. Hardouin, 
1477). Pope Zosimus, 4D. 417 -—‘‘ WHOSE PLACE WE RULE 
ovER, and are in possession of the authority of his name” (cujus 
locum nos regere, ipsius quoque potestatem nominis obtinere, non 
latet vos. fist. xi. ad Afros. Ῥ. 16, Galland, ix.). See note to 


Pp. 59, 60. 


102 Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 


tuted unto all Men Interpreter of the Voice of Blessed Peter 4 
—The Bishop of the Apostolic Chair—The Prelate of the Apos- 
tolic See®°—The very One Commissioned with the Guardtian- 
ship of the Vine by the Saviour°—The Head—Head of all the 
most Holy Priests of God—Head of all the Holy Churches— 
In relation to whom the Fathers of the Councils of Constanti- 
nople and Ephesus called themselves “ the Members,’ and the 
Fathers of Chalcedon “ the Children” "—Archbishop of all the 


4 General Council of Chalcedon, a.D. 451 :—aei τῆς τοὺ 
μακαρίου Πέτρου φωνῆς sgunveus καθισταμενος (Lprst. Synod, ad Leonem. 
p. 834, Labbe, iv.). 

6 General Council of Ephesus :—“ Pope Ccelestine, BisHoP 
OF THE AposToLic CHAIR” (A¢z. ii. p. 611). St. Augustine :— 
“ Pope Zosimus, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Epist. cxc. ἢ. 1). 
St. Vincent of Lerins, 4.D. 434 :—“ Pope Stephen, of blessed 
memory, PRELATE OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, (who) excelled all others 
by the authority of his place” (Apostolicze Sedis Antistes,.. . 
reliquos omnes . . . loci auctoritate superabat. Commonit. Adv. 
Her. Cc. 6). 

ὁ General Council of Chalcedon, regarding Dioscorus, to 
Pope Leo I. :- He even extended his madness against THE VERY 
ONE COMMISSIONED WITH THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE VINE BY THE 
SAVIOUR, THAT IS TO SAY, AGAINST YOUR APOSTOLIC HOLINESS ” 
(και nar ἄυτου του τῆς ἀμπέλου THY φυλακὴν παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιτετραμ- 
μένου τήν μανιᾶν εξετεινε λέγομεν On, τῆς σῆς ὁσιοτητος. Lpist. Synod. 
Leoni, p. 835, Labbe). 

7The Emperor Justinian, a.p. 533 :—“ Nor do we allow 
that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should 
fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being THE HEAD OF ALL 
THE HOLY Priests oF Gop, and because as often as heretics have 
arisen in these parts, they have been repressed by the sentence and 
judgment of that holy See” (Caput omnium sanctissimorum Dei 
sacerdotum. ΚΖ 21:2. ad Epiphan. Cod. Justinian, lib. i. tom. i. ἢ. 7). 
“Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, and 
honouring your Holiness, as one ought to honour a father, . . . we 
have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, 
and to unite them to the See of your Holiness. . . . For we do not 
allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which 


Papal Titles and Prervogatives. 103 


habitable world®—U niversal Archbishop, and Patriarch of 
Great Rome®—FPope or Bishop of the Universal Church ®— 


relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cogni- 
sance of your Holiness, since you are THE HEAD OF ALL HOLY 
CHURCHES” (vestre Sanctitati, qua caput est omnium sanctarum 
Kcclesiarum.! Zpist. ad Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lid. i, tit. 1). 
Council of Constantinople, 4p. 381. In their Synodical 
Epistle to Pope Damasus and the Bishops assembled at Rome, the 
Fastern Fathers say :—‘ You have summoned us as YOUR OWN 
MEMBERS (ὡς ome μελη) by the letters of the most religious Em- 
peror” (Ap. Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 9); and the Pope in 
his reply says: “ Most honoured CHILDREN (io τιμιωτατοι), In that 
your charity:accords to the ApostolicSee the reverence due, you confer 
the greatest honour on yourselves” (or τῇ αποστολικῇ καϑεδοῳ τὴν OpElr- 
οὠενμν αἰδω ἡ yarn ὕμων ἀπόνεμει, %.F. ». Theod. Hist. Eccles. v. ο. IO). 
General Council of Ephesus :—“ Philip, Priest and Legate 
of the Apostolic Chair, said: “We offer thanks to the holy and 
venerable Synod, that the letters of our holy and blessed Pope 
(Celestine) having been read to you, YOU HAVE UNITED YOUR HOLY 
MEMBERS, by your holy acclamations, TO THAT HOLY HEAD (ra ἁγια 
μελη. . . τῇ AIG κεφαλῇ). For your Blessedness is not ignorant 
that the blessed Peter is THE HEAD OF ALL THE FAITH, YEA, AND OF 
THE APOSTLES” (ἡ x8paAn odns TNS TIOTEWS, ἢ και τῶν αἀποστολῶν. ; Act. 
ii, p. 619, Labbe; p. 1471; Hardouin). General Council of 
Chalcedon :—“ Over whom (the Fathers of the Council) thou 
(Leo) DIDST RULE, AS A HEAD OVER THE MEMBERS, in those who 
filled thy place ” (ὧν συ μεν, ὡ; κεφαλη μελων, ἡγεμοόνευες ἐν τοῖς τὴν onv 
ταξιν ἐπέχουσι. Lpist. Synod. ad Leonem. Ῥ. 834). ‘We therefore 
call upon you to honour with your sanction our judgment ; and as 
we have brought our harmonious agreement with THE Heap in all 
good things, so let THE Heap fill up what is fitting for THE CHIL 
DREN ” (ταρακαλουμεν τοινὺν, τίμησον και ταις AIS Lagos τὴν ΜΌΝΑΙ wants 
ἡμεῖς TN κεφαλῃ THY EY σοις χαλοις συμφωνιᾶν εἰσενηνυχᾶμεν, οὑτω XO ” 
κορυφή τοῖς παισιν αναπληήρωσοι τὸ πρέπον. Ib. p. 838, Labbe). ‘“ The 
most blessed and Apostolic Bishop of the city of Rome, THE HEaD 


—— 


i τς σα 


1 ΦἩἨ-ς᾽ (Justinian), says Dean MILMAN, “ acknowledges the supremacy of 
the Roman Church, and commands all Churches to be united with her ” (Hist. of 
Lat. Chr. Ὁ. iii. c. v.). See also, regarding the Law of VALENTINIAN IIL. A.D. 


445, NEANDER’S Ch. Hist. iii. 246. 


104 Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 


The Bishop of the Catholic Church**— The Chief of the 
Universal Church"°—Elevated to the Lofty Summit of the 


OF ALL THE CHURCHES” (xspaAne Lrupyovros πασὼν τῶν EXXANCIWY. 
Sess. i. p. 94, Labbe). St. Isidore of Seville, a.p. 598 :-— 
“ And although the dignity of this (pastoral) power is derived to all 
Catholic Bishops, yet in a more special manner it remains for ever 
in THE ROMAN BISHOP, WHO IS BY A SINGULAR PRIVILEGE SET AS 
THE HEAD OVER THE OTHER MEMBERS. Whoso, therefore, renders 
not reverently to him due obedience, involves himself, as being 
severed from THE HEAD, in the schism of the Acephali” (Zzst. ad 
Eugenium Episc. Toletan). 

8. St. Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 424 :--αρχιεπισχοπὸν rans 
TNS οἰχουμενῆς, παάτερα TE καὶ πατριαρχῆν Κελεστινον, τὸν τῆς μεγαλοπόλεως 
Pawns (Hom. xi. in S. Mariam Deipar, p. 385). 

9 General Council of Chalcedon ᾿---ἢοχουμεένιχῳ ἀρχιεπιςχοπῳ 
καὶ σατριαρχῇ τῆς μεγάλης Pwuns Δεοντι (Act. lil. pp. 399, 411, Labbe ; 
PP. 325, 332, 335, Hardouin, tom. ii.). It is well known that this 
title was, at a later period, resected by Pope Gregory the Great, 
in the sense in which he understood it to have been usurped by John, 
Patriarch of Constantinople :—“ It is a lamentable thing, to be 
forced to suffer patiently, that, despising all others, my brother and 
fellow-bishop John endeavours to be called the onLy Bishop” 
(quatenus despectis omnibus . . . Solus conetur appellari episcopus. 
Lib. v. Epist. 21, ad Constant. August.). He himself declined the 
title, preferring rather to call himself “Servant of the servants of 
God” (servus servorum Dei) ; nevertheless he none the less strenu- 
ously maintained the Supremacy of his See over the Universal 
Church: “As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, 
who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is con- 
stantly owned by the most pious Emperor, and by our brother the 
Bishop of that city” (Lib. ix. Zés¢. xi.). On this subject see 
Kenrick, On the Primacy, 5th edit. pp. 156-160; Hawarden’s 
Charity and Truth, Amer. ed. 1860, pp. 212-220. 

10 Council of Chalcedon :—‘“I Paschasinus, Bishop of the 
Church of Lilybceta, . . . presiding over the holy Synod in the 
stead of the most blessed and Apostolic Leo, of the city of Rome, 


1 See also the Protestant writers, NEANDER, and MILMAN, cited by Dr. 
Newman (Via Media, vol. i. p. 188, mote, ed. 1877); and Fr. GALLWEY’S 
Lectures on Ritualism, 1878, pp. 222-241. 


Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 105 


Priesthood** — The Head and Chief of the Episcopate* — 
Apostolic Head of Bishops—Chief Pontiff and Bishop of Bishops 


ῬΟΡΕ OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH” (see Labbe, tom. iv. pp. 399, 
448, 581 ; and Hardouin; tom. ii. pp. 385, 465-467), &c. 

11 Pope Cornelius, Α.Ὁ. 250, quoting in his Epistle to St. 
Cyprian, the words of the repentant Confessors: ‘“ Nos, inquiunt, 
Cornelium EpiscoOPUM SANCTISSIMZ CATHOLIC# ECCLEsI# electum 
a Deo... scimus... nec ignoramus unum deum esse et unum 
Christum esse Dominum, unum Spiritum Sanctum, UNuM EPISCOPUM 
IN CATHOLICA ECCLESIA ESSE DEBERE” (Juter. Epist. Cyprian Ep. 
xlvi.). Council of Ephesus:—“Tue BisHop” (Ac. ui p. 
625). 

12 St. Avitus, a.p. 495:—‘“ We were anxious in mind and 
fearful in the cause of the Roman Church, as feeling our own posi- 
tion tottering in THE HEAD assailed... THE CHIEF OF THE 
UNIVERSAL CuurRcH. ... If the Pope of that city is called into 
doubt, not a Bishop, but the Episcopate will at once seem to be in 
danger” (In lacessito capite . . . Si Papa urbis vocatur in dubium, 
episcopatus jam videbitur, non episcopus vacillare. Zest. xxxi. p. 
724, Galland, tom. x.). 

18. §t. Cyprian :—“ Ad SAcERDOTII SUBLIME FASTIGIUM cunctis 
religionis gradibus (Cornelius) adscendit” (2 2251. lil. ad Antonian). 
The Emperor Valentinian 111., a.p. 455 :—“ Cui PRINCIPATUM 
SACERDOTII SUPER OMNES antiquitas contulit” (752. Efpzst. Leon. . 
Mag. \v.). The Patriarch John VI. of Constantinople, 
A.D. 715, calls the Pope “THE HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD, 
whom, in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren” 
(Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ap. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Grec. 
tom, ii. p. 211, seq.). 

14 St. Innocent, Pope, 4.D. 410:—“‘Ad nos, quasi AD CAPUT 
ATQUE AD APICEM Ἐριβοορατῦβ, referre” (Zest. xxxvil. Galland, 
Vili. p. 608). 

16 Tertullian, a.p. 195 :—“ I hear that an Edict has been sent 
forth, and a peremptory one indeed, to wit, THE CHIEF PONTIFF, 
THAT IS THE BisHop oF BisHops,! proclaims, ‘I remit, to those 
who have done penitence, the crimes both of adultery and fornica- 


1 The Protestant historian, NEANDER, observes that “very early indeed do 
we observe in the Roman Bishops traces of the assumption that to them, AS SUC- 
CESSORS OF ST. PETER, belonged a paramount authority in ecclesiastical dis- 


106 Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 


—Equal in office to other Bishops, but excelling them by the pre- 
rogative of the A postolic See 16. Apostolic Lord and Father 
of Fathers\— The Ruler of the Church 18. "74 has “the super- 


tion.’ . . . But this is read in the Church, and openly announced in 
the Church” (Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum. De 
Pudicit. c. i.). The title of Pontifex is several times given to 
Curist by Tertullian :-—“ Authenticus Pontifex Dei Patris” (Adv. 
Mare. iv. 35); “ Christus Pontifex Patris” (26. ς. 14). The Bishops 
of three Councils of Africa (see above, p. 89) address the 
Pope as ‘‘ APOSTOLIC HEAD or BisHops” (Praesulum vertex Aposto- 
licus), and “‘ SUPREME PONTIFF OF ALL PRELATES” (Summo omnium 
presulum pontifici. Epist. Synod. ad Pap. Theod. lect. in Conctl. 
Rom. ann. 649, sub. P. Mart.). 


16 Gouncil of Rome, 4-D. 378, regarding Pope Damasus :— 
Pp EZROGATIVA TAMEN APOSTOLIC SEepIs EXCELLIT” (Zpist. Synod. 
Labbe, tom. 11. p. 1003). 

17 The fathers of the General Council of Chalcedon call 
“Most holy and blessed FATHER,” and themselves his 
Epist. Synod. ad Leonem.). The Bishops of Dar- 
“To the most holy APOSTOLIC LoRD, AND 
ATHERS,! Gelasius, Pope of Rome, the 


Pope Leo, 
‘< CHILDREN ” ( 
dania, A.D. 492 :— 
MOST BLESSED FATHER OF F 


that the Cathedra Petri, as the source of Apostolic tradition, must take 
1 other ecclesia apostolic@... . In the Montanist writings of 
1 indications that the Roman Bishops already issued peremptory 
edicts on ecclesiastical matters, endeavoured to make themselves considered as 
THE BISHOPS OF BISHOPS—episcopos episcoporum—and were in the habit of 
speaking of the authority of their ‘ antecessores’” (Neander’s Hist of Church, 
Bohn’s edit. i. p. 298). It was evidently in reference to what he considered a 
tyrannical exercise of Pope Stephen’s authority, in the controversy regarding the 
re-baptization of heretics, that ST. CYPRIAN said to the Bishops assembled at 
‘‘ Neither does any one of ws set himself up as the Bishop of Bishops, 
or by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to a necessity of obeying.” 


i St. Columbanus, who represents the early Irish Church, calls the 
Popes ‘* THEIR LORDS AND FATHERS IN CHRIST,” ‘‘ CHOSEN WATCHMEN,” 
‘¢pRELATES MOST DEAR TO ALL THE FAITHFUL,” ‘*‘ THE MOST BEAUTIFUL 
HEADS OF ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE WHOLE OF Europe,” “PASTORS OF 
PASTORS, ‘* THE HIGHEST,” ‘** THE FIRST,” “THE FIRST PASTORS, SET HIGHER 
THAN ALL MORTALS,” “ RAISED NEAR UNTO ALL THE CELESTIAL BEINGS,” 
‘* PRINCES OF THE LEADERS,” ** THEIR FATHERS, THEIR IMMEDIATE PATRONS, ” 
εἰ THE STEERSMEN, THE PILOTS OF THE SPIRITUAL SHIP,” &c. Domino sancto, 
et in Christo Patri Romano, .-- - egregio speculatori, &c. (Zpzst. ad Greg. Pap. 


Galland, xii. 345). Domino sancto et in Christo Apostolico Patri Pape... - - 


putes ; 
precedence of al 
Tertullian we finc 


Carthage : 


Papal Titles and Prerogaties. 107 


vision in matters of Faith” “—He has “ Apostolic power over 
all Ὶ ; . ᾽) ς : 
’ and the Primacy in all things”*°—Contrary to his judg- 


humble Bishops of Dardania” (Rescript. Episc. Dardan. ad Gelas 
116s, Labbe, tom. iv.). Bishops of Africa, a.p. 649 :—“ προ οι 
BEATISSIMO, APOSTOLICO CULMINE SUBLIMATO, SANCTO PaTRI 
PatruMm Theodoro Pape,” &c. (Zpist. ad Pap. Theod.). The title 
of 3 FATHER OF FATHERS” was frequently given to the Pope by the 
Orientals, from the sixth century downwards. See dae in 
Hergenrother’s Anti-Janus, p. 101. Theodore the Studite 
calls him “ THE SUPREME FATHER OF FATHERS” (xogupasmrarog πατήρ 
πατέρων, Lib. i. Zpist. xxxiii. p. 1017). ; 

16 Ambrosiaster, A.D. 380:—‘ Whereas the whole world is 
God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, OF WHICH DAMASUS 
IS AT THIS DAY THE RULER” (Ut cum totus mundus Dei sit, ecclesia 
tamen domus ejus dicatur, cujus hodie rector est τ λέν Com- 
ment, in Epist.i. ad Tim. Inter. Op. S. Ambros.). The Emperor 
Valentinian III., a.p. 445 :—“‘ The primacy of the Apostolic See 
having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the 
dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of a μῶν Synod 
no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the 
authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved onl 
WHEN THE WHOLE CHURCH ACKNOWLEDGES ITS RULER” (A : 
Neander, Hist. of Ch. iii. p. 246). i 

19 The Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo I. :—“Sanctitatem 
tuam PRINCIPATUM ΙΝ EPISCOPATU DIVINE FIDEI POSSIDENTEM” 
(Epist. \xxiii. int. Epist. S. Leonts. Mazg.). 

20 Theodoret :—“ I, therefore, beseech your holiness to per- 
suade the most holy and blessed Archbishop (Leo) To USE HIS 
APOSTOLIC POWER (rn axoorodinn χρήσασθαι eZovery), and to order me 


Sedi Apostolicz presidentes, dulcissimos omnibus preesules fidelibus, &c. (Z pest. 
ad Boni. Pap. Jb. p. 349): Pulcherrimo omnium totius Hercpes, sctlastabiiie 
capitl, Papze preedulci, przecelso Preesuli, pastorum pastori,. .. busiililiens celsis- 
simo, maximo, . . . extremus primo . . . scribere audet Bonifacio Patri Palum- 
bus (7d. p. 351). Magistris ac spiritualis navis gubernatoribus ac mysticis pro- 
retis . + primum pastorem.. . in specula quasi cunctis mortalibus altior positus 
vicinusque ceelestium effectus ... ducum principem, &c. ἄς. (76. pp. 352, 353) 
‘¢ Fearing do I moan unto thee alone, who from among the princes art the ols 
hope, HAVING AUTHORITY THROUGH THE PRIVILEGES OF THE sealitn 
PETER” (Dolens ac timens, ad teque tantum qui unica spes de principibus és 
per honorem potens Petri Apostoli sancti. . . plango. Lb. Ῥ. 353). ᾿ 


108 Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 


ment the Churches cannot make Ecclesiastical Laws 3 -- To 
Him are intrusted “ the Gate” and “ the Sheep” —He ts the 
Shepherd of the Church®—On account of the Dignity of his 


to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne has THE 
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE CHURCHES THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE ON 
MANY GROUNDS” (sxe γὰρ 0 παναγίος θρονος exeivos τῶν xara τὴν ουχουμενῆὴν 
εχχκλησιων τὴν ἡγεμονιᾶν δια πολλα. Tom. iv. Zpist. cxvi. Renato, p. 
1197). “It pertains to you (Pope Leo) TO HOLD THE PRIMACY IN 
ALL THINGS, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives ” 
(Aim παντὰ γὰρ dus τὸ προτευεῖν ἁρμοττει" πολλοῖς γαρ ὁ ὑμετερος θρονος 
xoousiras Πλεονεχτήμασι. Lb. Epist. cxiii. Leoni, Ὁ. 1187). 

21 Sozomen, a.D. 440:—“It is a sacerdotal law, THAT THE 
THINGS DONE CONTRARY TO THE SENTIMENT OF THE BIsHOP OF 
THE ROMANS BE LOOKED UPON AS NULL” (sis yag νόμον jeparinov, ὡς 
ακυρὰ ἀποφαινειν, τῷ παρὰ γνωμὴν πραττομένα rov Ῥωμαιὼν επισχοπου. 
Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 8, 10). See note to ῥΡ. 77' The Greek 
Patriarch Anatolius, to Pope Leo I. regarding the Council of 
Chalcedon :—“‘ THE WHOLE GROUND AND CONFIRMATION OF WHAT 
HAD BEEN DONE WAS RESERVED FOR YOUR BLESSEDNESS ” (Ges- 
torum vis omnis et confirmatio auctoritati vestre beatitudinis fuit 
reservata.! Zpist. Anatot. int. Epist. Leonts, CXxXxii.). 

22 St. Ambrose, A.D. 385, to Pope Siricius, who had ordered 
that Jovinian and others should be excommunicated in the Church 
of Milan :—‘‘ We have recognised in the letter of your Holiness the 
watchfulness of THE GOOD SHEPHERD, WHO DOST FAITHFULLY KEEP 
THE GATE INTRUSTED TO THEE, and with pious solicitude dost GUARD 
THE FOLD OF CHRIST, worthy, indeed, that the Lord’s sheep should 
hear and follow thee” (Recognovimus literis Sanctitatis tue boni 
pastoris excubias, qui fdeliter commissam tibi januam serves, et pia 
solicitudine Christi ovile custodias, dignus quem oves Christi audiant 
et sequantur. Z/ist. ΧΙ], Sérzcio. tom. ii, p. 966). St. Jerome, 
writing from the East to Pope Damasus :— From THE SHEPHERD 
the sheep asks protection” (A pastore presidium ovis flagito. Zpzs?. 
xv. ad Damas. n. 2). St. Columbanus, writing in the name of 


. 


1 On the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OVER GENERAL COUNCILS, in regard 
to their CONVOCATION, PRESIDENCE, DIRECTION, CONFIRMATION, &c., see 
HEFELE’s History of Church Councils, vol. i. Eng. trans. ; DoLLINGER, Hist. of 
Church, Eng. trans. vol. il, p. 221, S€g.} HERGENROTHER’S Anti-Fanus, Eng. 
trans. p. 120, séq.5 KENRICK’s Primacy of the Apostolic See, sth ed. p. 227, seq. 


Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 109 


Throne, the Care of All belongs to him ®—The Vicar of Christ 
With Whom whoso gathereth not, scattereth, and belongeth 
to Antichrist *—His authority is derived from the authority of 
Holy Scripture, and is of Divine Institution®—Placed by God 


the Irish Church to Pope Boniface IV. :—‘¢ Watch, therefore, for 
the peace of the Church ; help thy sheep already affrighted at the 
dread, as it were, of wolves. WHEREFORE USE, O POPE, THE 
WHISTLINGS AND THE WELL-KNOWN VOICE OF THE TRUE SHEPHERD, 
AND STAND BETWEEN THY SHEEP AND THE WOLVES, SO THAT, CASTING 
AWAY THEIR FEAR, THY SHEEP MAY IN EVERYTHING KNOW THEE THE 
FIRST PASTOR” (Subvenite ovibus vestris . . . utere veri, O Papa, 
pastoris sibilis notaque voce, et sta inter illas et lupas, ut deposito 
pavore, tunc primum te ex integro cognoscant pastorem. Epist. ad 
Bonif. Pap. Ῥ. 3525 Galland, xii.). ‘THE PASTOR OF PasTORS” 
(pastorum Pastori. 0. p. 351). 

28 Sozomen, A.D. 445, says of Pope Julius, to whom St. Athana- 
sius and other Eastern Bishops, deposed by the Arians, had ap- 
pealed :—‘ And as, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIGNITY OF HIS THRONE, 
THE CARE OF ALL BELONGS TO HIM, he restored to each his own 
Church” (Ov δε της πάντων κηδεμονιας αὐτῷ προσηχουσῆς δια τὴν αξιαν του 
θρονου, ἑκαστῳ τὴν ιδιαν exxrnorav ἀπεδωχε. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 8). 

4 Gouncil of Rome, 4.D. 495. In their acclamations at the 
close of this Council, the Fathers call Pope Gelasius “‘ THE VICAR 
or Curist” (vicarium Christi te videmus, Apostolum Petrum te 
videmus.  Concil. Rom. sub Gelas. Labbe, iv. p. 2275). St. 
Jerome to Pope Damasus -_‘¢ 7k THAT GATHERETH NOT WITH 
THEE, SCATTERETH, THAT IS, HE WHO IS NOT OF CHRIST IS OF ANTI- 
CHRIST” (Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit, hoc est, qui Christi 
non est, Antichristi est. Z/7s?. xv. ad Pap. Damas.). 

% St. Augustine and Council of Milevis, 4.D. 416, to Pope 
Innocent :—“ We think that those who entertain such perverse 
opinions will more readily yield to THE AUTHORITY OF YOUR HOoLi- 
NESS, DERIVED AS IT IS FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THE HoLy ScRIP- 
TURES” (auctoritati Sanctitatis tue, de sanctarum Scripturarum 
auctoritate deprompte, &c. 215. clxxvi. ἢ. 5). St. Leo the 
Great :—‘ The care which, in virtue of our headship, we owe, BY 
THE DIVINE INSTITUTION, to all the Churches” (Curam, quam uni- 
versis Ecclesiis principaliter ex divina-institutione debemus. . 2151. 
xiv. ad Anastas. Thessalon. Epise. C. τ. Et ap. Hurter, Patr. Opuse. vol. 


110 Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 


on a Watch-tower, higher than all other mortals, His Spiritual 
Care extends overall places where the name of God ts preached.” 


xxv. p. 99). ‘“Solicitudo, quam universe Ecclesi# EX DIVINA 
INSTITUTIONE dependimus” (Z/ist. xii. ad Zpisc. Prov. Maurit. 
Cesar. c. 1). Council of Rome, a.p. 494 :-- The holy Roman 
Catholic and Apostolic Church has been raised above the other 
Churches, NOT BY ANY SYNODAL DECREES, BUT FROM THE EVAN- 
GELIC VOICE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR HAS IT OBTAINED THE 
PRIMACY, He saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock,’” &c. 
(Decret. Conc. Rom. sub Gelas. Labbe, iv. p. 1261; and in Den- 
zinger’s Enchiridion, p. 41, ed. 1874). This extract is given here, 
because what is said of the Roman Church.is evidently said of, and 
on account of, its Bishops, as successors of St. Peter. Thus, also, 
the Fathers of the Sixth General Council, held at Constanti- 
nople, a.D. 680, so little distinguished “inter sedem et in ed seden- 
tem,” that they identify Pope Agatho and the See as one and the 
same. They address him ὡς προτοθρονῳ σοι τῆς οἰχουμενιχῆς εχχλησιας : 
“To thee, therefore, as the first See of the Universal Church, we 
leave what is to be done” (Labbe, vil. 1110). 

26 Pope Coelestine, a.p. 423 :—“ PLACED AS WE ARE BY GOD ON 
A WATCH-TOWER, . . . OUR SPIRITUAL CARE FAILS NOT AS REGARDS 
PLACES HOWEVER DISTANT, BUT EXTENDS THROUGH ALL PLACES 
WHERE THE NAME OF GOD IS PREACHED” (Z fist. iv. Univ. Zpisc. 
per Vienn. et Narbonens. Prov. n. 1, Galland, ix.). St. Colum- 
banus :—“ IN SPECULA QUASI CUNCTIS MORTALIBUS ALTIOR POSI- 
tus,” ἄς. LEpist. ad Bonif. p. 252). Speaking of the conversion of 
this country by Pope Gregory the Great, Venerable Bede says : 
‘‘ Whereas he BORE THE PONTIFICAL POWER OVER ALL THE WORLD, 
and was placed over the Churches already reduced to the faith 
of truth, he made our nation, till then given up to idols, the Church 
of Christ ” (Bede’s Eccles. Hist. lib. ii. c. 1, Giles’ trans. Bohn’s edit.). 


THE following extracts from the writings of Alucin, Theo- 
dore the Studite, and St. Bernard—all of whom were 
renowned throughout Christendom—may suffice to show 
what was the belief universally entertained regarding the 


Prerogatives of the Pope in the eighth, ninth, and following 
centuries :— 


Papal Titles and Prerogatives. 11 


Alcuin, who flourished about A.D. 780, thus addresses 
Pope Leo III.:—‘‘To Leo the Pope, the most blessed Lord, 
&c.... As much as ever I could, have I always loved the 
most blessed princes, and shepherds of the holy Roman See; 
wishful to be numbered, through their most holy interces- 
sions, among Christ’s sheep, which Christ our God intrusted 
unto the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, to be fed. 
This, I acknowledge, was truly becoming, that the multitude 
of this flock, though abiding in sundry pastures of the earth, 
should, by the one faith of love, be placed under its Shepherd, 
whom, as a godly Pastor, it becometh to havea great care for 
the flock intrusted to his keeping, &c. . . . BEHOLD, THOU 
ART, MOST HOLY FATHER, THE PONTIFF CHOSEN BY GOD, 
THE VICAR OF THE APOSTLES, THE HEIR OF THE FATHERS, 
THE PRINCE OF THE CHURCH, THE NOURISHER OF THE 
ONE SPOTLESS DovE. In the kindness of fatherly feeling, by 
thy most holy prayers, and sweetest exhortations of sacred 
writings, gather us unto God’s holy Church, within the very 
strong bonds of the Church’s soundness ; lest any of us, 
wandering about, should be met on the outside to be devoured 
by the ravenousness of the wolf” (Ecce tu, sanctissime Pater, 
Pontifex a Deo electus, vicarius Apostolorum, heres Patrum, 
Princeps Ecclesia, unius immaculate columbe nutritor, &c. 
Alcuin. Epist. Op. tom. i. p. 30, ed. Froben.). 

Theodore, Abbot of the Studium at Constantinople, thus 
addresses Pope Paschal I., A.D. 817 :—“ Hear, Ὁ APOSTOLIC 
HEAD, O SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP OF CHRIST, SET OVER 
THEM BY Gop! O DOOR-KEEPER OF THE KINGDOM OF 
HEAVEN! O ROCK OF THE FAITH UPON WHICH THE ΟΑ- 
THOLIC CHURCH IS BUILT! For PETER THOU ART, WHO 
ADORNEST AND GOVERNEST THE SEE OF PETER. To THEE, 
said Christ our God, ‘And thou, in thy turn, one day con- 
firm thy brethren.’ Behold the time, behold the place ; help 
us, THOU WHO ART ORDAINED ΒΥ GOD FOR THIS! Stretch 
forth thy hand as far as may be: POWER THOU HAST FROM 
GoD, BECAUSE THOU ART THE CHIEF OF ALL. Terrify, we 
beseech thee, the wild beasts of heresy with the sword of thy 
divine word. Good Shepherd, give thy life for the sheep. 
Let the whole Church which is under heaven hear that thou 


[12 Papal Titles and Prerogatiwes. 


hast in thy Council anathematised all who dare to do such 
things, and to anathematise our holy Fathers” (Zpist. lib. ii. 
Ep. xii. p. 1152, seg., Migne, Patr. Gr. tom. xcix.). 

St. Bernard, A.D. 1150, thus addresses Pope Eugenius 
III. :—* Who art thou? THE HIGH PRIEST, THE SUPREME 
BisHop. THOU ART THE PRINCE OF BISHOPS, THOU 
ART THE HEIR OF THE APOSTLES. THOU ART ABEL IN 
PRIMACY, NOAH IN GOVERNMENT, ABRAHAM IN THE PAT- 
RIARCHAL RANK, IN ORDER MELCHISEDECH, IN DIGNITY 
AARON, IN AUTHORITY MOSES, SAMUEL IN THE JUDICIAL 
OFFICE, PETER IN POWER, CHRIST IN UNCTION. THOU 
ART HE TO WHOM THE KEYS OF HEAVEN ARE GIVEN, TO 
WHOM THE SHEEP ARE INTRUSTED. There are, indeed, 
other door-keepers of heaven, and other shepherds of the 
flocks; but thou art the more glorious in proportion as thou 
hast also, in a different fashion, inherited before others both 
these names. The former have the flocks assigned to them, 
each one his own: TO THEE ALL ARE INTRUSTED, ONE 
FLOCK FOR THE ONE. Not merely for the sheep, but FOR 
ALL THE SHEPHERDS ALSO THOU ART THE ONE SHEPHERD. 
Whence do I prove this? thou askest. From the word of the 
Lord. For to whom—lI say not among the Bishops, but 
among the Apostles—have the whole flock been committed 
“1 a manner so absolute and undistinguishing ? ‘Tf thou 
lovest me, Peter, feed My sheep. What sheep? The inhabi- 
tants of this or that city or country, those of a particular 
kingdom? ‘My SHEEP,’ He saith. Who does not see that 
HE DESIGNATES NOT SOME, BUT ALL? Nothing is excepted 
where nothing is distinguished. The power of others is 
limited by definite bounds; THINE EXTENDS EVEN OVER 
THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS. 
Canst thou not, when a just reason occurs, shut up heaven 
against a Bishop, depose him from his Episcopal office, and 
deliver him over to Satan? Thus thy privilege is immutable, 
as well in the keys committed to thee, as in the sheep in- 
trusted to thy care” (De Considerat. lib. ii. c. 8, quoted by 
Hergenréther, Anéi-Janus, Eng. trans. p. 100). 


APPENDIX. 


...,»---.- 


ST. PETER THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME. 


Tuat St. Peter was the first who sat in the Apostolic Chair in Rome, 
is shown by various testimonies contained in this work. (See, 
especially, the note to Pp. 60.) As this fact is still continually dis- 
puted by Protestant writers, it may be worth while to append here 


the following letter to a Protestant friend, containing notes on the 
Rev. R. Macuire’s work, entitled “Sr. PETER NON-ROMAN — 


My DEAR. . . ,— ο avoid charging the author of the book you 
sent me with wilful misstatements and suppression of facts, it must 


be supposed that he omitted to verify, in many instances, not only 
his quotations from ancient authors, but even those from the more 


modern ones—such as Bellarmine and Bishop Pearson. 

He refers (p. 4) to Bellarmine as laying down, as an “< tndispens- 
able requisite” of the Papal claims, that St. Peter was actually 
resident in Rome for twenty-five years ; whereas, what Bellarmine 
really asserts, in common with most Catholic theologians (see 
Murray, De Zcclesia, vol. iii. p. 536, dat. 1866), is, that St. Peter's 
actual presence in Rome, and his death there, are not points essen- 
tial to be established at all; for that he would have been Bishop of 
Rome, and would have remained so until his death, although he 
himself (like some of the Avignon Popes) Aad never set foot at all in 
that City! The whole fiction, therefore, invented by Mr. M., of its 
being “ an essential requirement »__<¢ the very core of the Papal 
theory” (p. 149)—that St. Peter “really sat in Rome Jor twenty-five 
years,” by which Mr. M. understands “an official residence for so 
many years” (p. 21), 1s exploded at once, as well as all his laboured 
argumentation to prove—what no one denies—that St. Peter was 
certainly often in other places. No Catholic cares to contend for 
“the twenty-five years’ theory ” (p. 151)- Dollinger, in his History 


of the Church (vol. i.), says -— As for a continuous residence of 


twenty-five years’ duration at Rome, ¢hat was never maintained by 
H 


114 Appendix. 


any person whatever.” 


“No Catholic,” says Waterworth, “ ever 
pretended. that St. Peter always remained in Rome after the estab- 
lishment of the Episcopal See in the Imperial City. Ad suppose 
that he did not remain there. And if they still allow that he was 
the Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, notwithstanding years of 
absence, they maintain this precisely on the same grounds as they 
ascribe twenty-three years of spirtual sovereignty to Pius VL, and 
twenty-three to Pius VII.” (Engl. and Rome, c. i1.). 

In regard to the two points which Bellarmine declares to be non- 
essential, though demonstrable by the clearest historical testimony, 
viz., St.Peter’s presence in Rome and death there, the learned Protes- 
tant Whiston says: “That St. Peter was in Rome is so clear in 
Christian antiquity, that ἐξ ἐς a shame for a Protestant to confess that 
any Protestant ever denied it.” Chamierius (whose words are quoted 
and approved by Cave) says: ‘‘ A// the Fathers with great unanimity 
have asserted that Peter did go to Rome, and that he did govern that 
Church” (Panstrat. Cath. de Rom. Pont. lib. xiii. c. 4, quoted by 
Dr. Cave, “ Lives of the Apostles” —St. Peter). Another learned 
Protestant—Grotius—says, in his note on 1 Pet. v. 13: “ Ancient 
and modern interpreters differ about this ‘ Babylon.’ The ancients 
understood it of Rome, where that Peter was, no true Christian will 
doubt” (Veteres Romam interpretantur, ubi Petrum fuisse memo verus 
Christianus dubitabit). 1 observe that Mr. M. alludes (p. 151) to 
the Protestant Bishop Pearson, and represents him as “ simply 
pleading for St. Peter's martyrdom in Rome,” ignorantly or dis- 
honestly suppressing the fact that Pearson wrote a learned and 
elaborate treatise expressly to prove that St. Peter was Bishop of 
Rome, and that the Popes are his legitimate successors (Opera ἢ ‘osthuma, 
Lond., 1688). Archbishop Bramhall also says: “That St. Peter 
had a fixed Chair at Antioch, and after that at Rome, is what no 
man, who giveth any credit to the ancient Fathers, and Councils, 
and historiographers of the Church, can either deny or well doubt 
of” (Bram. Works, p. 628, ed. Oxon.). Dr. Cave says: “* We 
intrepidly affirm wth all antiquity, that St. Peter was at Rome, and 
for some time resided there 
I think, agree with me that Peter may be called Bishop of Rome in 
a less strict sense, inasmuch as he /aid the foundations of this Church, 
and rendered it illustrious by his martyrdom” (Sec Ajost. S. Pet.). 

The whole subject of the Scriptural evidence bearing on St. 
Peter’s work in Rome is treated in a masterly way by Dr. Dollinger, 


Appendix. 115 


in his First Age of the Church. 1 may remind you that St. Paul had 
not been in Rome, before he wrote his Epistle to the Church there 
constituted (see Rom. i. 10-13; XV. 22, 23). By whom, then, had 
that Church been founded—a Church so well-ordered and renowned 
that, as he states in c. 1. 8, zs “ faith was spoken of in the whole 
world”? Clearly by St. Peter; for Christian antiquity points out 
only him and St. Paul as having been the founders of the Church at 
Rome. Again, it was clearly foretold to St. Peter that by his mar- 
tyrdom by crucifixion he should “ glorify God” (John xxi.). The 
place where he did so must consequently have been well known in 
the Early Church. But zo other place than Rome was ever mentioned 
or thought of by any ancient writer, as the one where St. Peter thus 
glorified God by his martyrdom. St. Clement, A.D. 96 (see Maguire, 
Ρ. 32), alluded to a fact too notorious ! to require particular mention 
or details, when referring to the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, 
in his Epistle to the Corinthians. 

In ch. iv. of his work Mr. M. makes a vain attempt to invalidate 
the testimony of Eusebius, and to depreciate his authority as an 
historian. Any one that desires can read Eusebius’ history for him- 
self, as an English translation of it is published in Bohn’s Theological 
Library. Mr. M. simply gardles his first chapter (pp. 37, 38). In 
point of fact, Eusebius had, when compiling his history, access to a 
host of works by earlier authors, most of which have long been lost. 
In lib. v. cap. 27, he says: ἐς Numerous works, indeed, of ancient 
ecclesiastical writers are still preserved by many, the monuments of 
a virtuous industry.” Some of these authors he mentions, and con- 
tinues, “‘ Jxnumerable others there are also, that have come down to us, 
even the names of which it would be impossible to give. All of them 


1 The following is a list of early authors who distinctly refer to St. Peter’s 
residence in Rome, or to his martyrdom, or the establishment of his Episcopal 
See in that city :—Clement of Rome (A.D. 96), Ignatius (107), Papias (118), 
Irenzeus (178), Clement of Alexandria (190), Dionysius of Corinth (168), Tertul- 
lian (195), Caius (214), Origen (216), Hippolytus (220), Cyprian (248), Pope 
Stephen (250), Anatolius (270), Peter of Alexandria (306), Arnobius (310), 
Lactantius (320), Eusebius (320), Pope Julius (342), Athanasius (362), Cyril of 
Jerusalem (363), Optatus (375), Ambrose (375), Pope Damasus (370), Gregory 
Nazianzen (370), Epiphanius (385), Jerome (390), Chrysostom (385), Augustini 
(400), Prudentius (405), Theodoret (424), Prosper (429), &c. To these must be 
added the Council of Arles (314), the Council of Sardica (343), several African 
Councils (416), and the General Councils of Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), 
—in all of which a distinct reference is made to the Roman Church as the See of 
St. Peter, and to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as his successors. 


116 Appendix. 


were orthodox and Ecclesiastical writers.” Compare this with Mr. 
M.’s statement in p. 37 of his book, where he represents Eusebius 
as complaining of the paucity of earlier ecclesiastical authors! It is 
evident that when Eusebius speaks of himself as entering on “a 
trackless and unbeaten path,” and “unable to find the bare vestiges 
of those who preceded him,” he means in writing a complete history of 
the whole Church, which he himself was the first to undertake to do. 
The value of Pafias’ testimony (depreciated by Mr. M. p. 63) is 
shown by the Protestant Dr. Cave, who refutes Spanheim’s objec- 
tions. Mr. M.’s statement that Eusebius “ speaks of his works as 
having only a traditional existence,’ is simply untrue. Eusebius’ 
words are: “‘ There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear 
the title of ‘Interpretation of our Lord’s declarations.’ J/ren@us 
also makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the 
following terms: ‘ These things are attested by Papias, an ancient 
author who mentions them in the fourth book of his works. For he 
has written a work in five books’” (Euseb. iil. 6. 39). Thus it 
appears that /reneus, who wrote 150 years before Eusebius, posi- 
tively attests the fact in his own writings, and Eusebius himself pro- 
ceeds to guote from these works of Papias—still extant in his own 
day! The “fabulous” notions which Eusebius (who in Lib. iii. c. 
36, calls him, “ a man well skilled in all kinds of learning, and well 
acquainted with the Scriptures ἢ) attributes to Papias, related to the 
subject of the “ Afillennium,” or personal reign of Christ on the 
earth ; and this is the sole point to which Eusebius refers when he 
« deplores the effect of his testimony on those that came after him” 
(Maguire, p. 64). The value of Eusebius’ judgment, and his accuracy 
as an historian, are shown by his summary rejection of all dubious 
traditions of this sort; and his mode of speaking of the spurious 
writings attributed to St. Peter shows how very unlikely he was to 
have introduced into his history any facts or statements that were 
not based upon the most reliable testimony. It may be said, 
indeed, that he rather erred, at times, in the opposite direction, since 
he speaks doubtfully of the Second Epistle of Peter, and several more 
of the Canonical writings. His words are: “As to the writings of 
Peter, one of his Epistles is acknowledged as genuine. For this was 
anciently used by the ancient Fathers in their writings, as an un- 
doubted work of the Apostle. But that which is called the second, 
we have not indeed understood to be embodied with the Sacred 
Books ; yet as it appeared useful to many, it was studiously read 


Appendix. 117 


with the other Scriptures. As to that work, however, called ‘ Zhe 
Acts of Peter, and ‘ The Gospel according to Peter,’ and that called 
‘ The Preaching and the Revelations of Peter’” (these were all heretical 
compositions), “we know nothing of their being handed down as 
Catholic writings ; since neither among the ancients, nor the Eccle- 
siastical writers of our day, has there been one that has appealed to 
testimony taken from them” (Euseb. Hist. Ecc. iii. 3). 

Dr. Dollinger (First Age of the Church, p. 296), discusses the 
subject of St. Peter's presence in Corinth (see Maguire, p. 97) in 
connection with his journey to Rome. 5. Paul’s allusion to him, 
“Cephas,” in 1 Cor. 1. 12, iii. 32, shows that he had been in Corinth ; 
and Clement of Rome alludes to the fact as well as Dionysius of 
Corinth. The last named author, who wrote A.D. 175, distinctly 
attributes the founding of the Roman and Corinthian Churches to 
St. Peter and St. Paul, ἀξ, as Paul founded the Corinthian, St. Peter 
founded the Roman Church. St. Irenzeus, also, says that “Peter 
and Paul preached the gospel and founded the Church at Rome” 
(Euseb. v. 8); and St. Ignatius, writing to the Roman Church, 
refers to the same fact. “1 do not command you,” he says, ‘as did 
Peter and Paul.” The testimony of these writers is not shaken by 
anything that Mr. M. has said. 

There can be no doubt that the order of the first Bishops of 
Rome was:—t. PETER, 2. Linus, 3. CLETUS (or ANENCLETUS), 
4.CLEMENT. ‘This, as before observed (p. 85), is the order given by 
Irenzeus, Eusebius (who followed Hegesippus and Irenzeus), and 
Epiphanius, as well as in the ancient Canon of the Roman Mass, 
which expresses the earliest traditions of the Roman Church. Euse- 
bius says that Linus was “ the first after Peter to obtain the episco- 
pate” (mgwros mera Tlergov. Hist. Ece iii. 4); “the first after the 
martyrdom of Paul and Peter ” (iii. 2, and 21). St. Irenzus, after 
referring to those whom the Apostles “left as their successors in the 
Churches, delivering to them their own post of government,” confines 
himself to giving the succession in the Roman Church only ; and 
states that “the blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) having founded 
and established this Church, transmitted the office of the episcopate 
to Linus. He was succeeded by Anencletus, and after him Clement 
held the episcopate, the third from the Apostles” (Iren. ap. Euseb. 
v. 6). Eusebius, also, still reckoning from Linus as “the jirst” (i.e. 
“after Peter,” il. 4), calls Clement ‘the third bishop” (10.), “the 
third that held the episcopate after Paul and Peter” (ie. ‘after 


118 Appendix. 


their martyrdom,” iii. 21, comp. 6. 2). Alexander is called by him 
“the sth in the succession from Peter and Paul” (iv. 1); Xystus “the 
sixth from the Apostles” (Iren. ap. Euseb. v. 6); Telesephorus “ the 
seventh in the succession from the Apostles (iv. 5). Hyginus is counted 
by Irenzeus and Eusebius as the exghth 3ishop, when reckoning from 
Linus as “the first ” a@fver Peter (v. 6) ; but elsewhere Irenzeus twice 
calls him “the ninth in the succession,” “ the ninth that held the 
episcopate in succession from the Apostles” (ap. Euseb. iv. 11), 
evidently counting Peter himself as “the first.” Hyginus is also 
called the ninth by the ancient author of the Carm. adv. Marcion, by 
St. Cyprian (““Hyginus Episcopus qui in urbe onus fuit,” Zpist. 74), 
and by St. Epiphanius. Other Popes are in like manner reckoned 
by Eusebius “from the Apostles” (Preem. in lib. v. 6) ; and Victor is 
called “the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter” (v. 28). 

Mr. Maguire and other Protestant writers contend, that because 
Linus, Cletus, and Clement are reckoned by Irenzus and Eusebius 
as “the first,” “second,” and “third” Bishops of Rome, therefore, 
those authors did not regard St. Peter himself as the first Bishop (see 
Maguire, pp. 117-124) ; but these objectors invariably suppress the 
fact that Irenzeus and Eusebius counted Linus as “the “γε: AFTER 
PETER,” just as Eusebius also reckons the Bishops of Alexandria 
from Annianus as “ the first Bishop” (iii. 14, iv. 1), meaning that he 
was “the first Bishop AFTER MARK,” whom “he succeeded in the 
-dministration of the Church of Alexandria” (ii. 24). He calls 
Annianus “ ¢he first” Bishop of Alexandria, just as he calls Linus 
“‘ the first” Bishop of Rome, and reckons the Bishops of Alexandria 
“ trom the Apostles” (iv. 1) just as both he and Irenzeus reckon those 
of Rome. Eusebius reckons the Bishops of Azsioch in like manner, 
“ from the Apostles” (Quest. ad Stephan. ; and Litst. Eccl. iv. 20, 24; 
ν. 22), naming Evodius as the first Bishop, and Ignatius the second ; 
but here, again, he did not mean to exclude St. Peter himself, who 
had been Bishop of Antioch before them for some years, and 
accordingly he distinctly speaks of Ignatius as the second “ suc- 
CESSOR OF PETER” in that See (iii. 36); and, before him, Origen 
had termed Ignatius “the second Bishop of Antioch AFTER PETER . 
Hom, vi. in Lucan, op. ed. Delarue, iii. 938). It appears, then, 
that Eusebius counted St. Peter to have been Bishop of Rome 
before Linus, as truly as he counted him to have been Bishop of 
Antioch before Evodius and Ignatius; or as truly as he counted St. 
Mark to have been Bishop of Alexandria before Annianus. 


Appendix. 119 


The expression so often used by him, “ from the Apostles,” when 
giving the successions in the Sees of Kome, Antioch, and Alexandria, 
and also in that of Jerusalem (lib. iv. c. 5, v. 12), neither excludes 
an Apostle from the first episcopate in each See, nor does it prove 
that more than one Apostle had held it. As regards the See of 
Jerusalem, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius dis- 
tinctly state°that St. James the Apostle was the first Bishop (Euseb. 
Hist. Ecc. ii. τῷ 23; iii. 5 ; iv. 5); and Eusebius adds that, in his 
own day, the episcopal ‘‘¢irone” of the Apostle was still preserved 
with great veneration in that city (vii. 19, 32). In the case of the 
three first-named Sees, he reckons “from” or “after” Peter and 
Mark, calling the first successor in each See “the first Bishop,” 
just as an English historian might speak of William Rufus as the 
first Norman king of England “ from” or “after” the Conqueror, 
certainly without meaning to exclude the Conqueror himself. 

The Chronicle of St. Hippolytus (a.D. 225) “counts Peter as first 
Bishop of Rome” (Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Literat. 1. p. 
577), and Linus as second; but it then places Clement before 
Cletus, and seems to reckon Cletus and Anencletus as different 
persons. The best Protestant writers agree with Catholic historians 
in considering the order mentioned above as infinitely more trust- 
worthy! than the lists in which Clement is placed before Cletus. 

The words of Tertullian: “ The Roman Church refers to Clement, 
ordained by Peter” (Romanorum ecclesia Clementem a Petro ordi- 
natum refert. De Prescr. Heret. c. 32), do not necessarily imply 
that this writer regarded Clement as irs¢ in the succession, as it was 
not Tertullian’s object to give the Apostolical succession in the 
Roman Church, but to prove the apostolicity of doctrine; and it 
suited his purpose to name Clement, as being the most renowned, 

1 Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, 
gives the following reasons for preferring the order given by Irenzeus and Euse- 
bius :—‘*‘ First, because it is distinctly the more ancient; secondly, because if 
the earlier tradition had not placed the undistinguished name of Cletus before the 
well-known Clement, no later writer would have been under any temptation to 


reverse its order; thirdly, because of the testimony of the Liturgy.’’ He con- 
cludes “‘ that the commemoration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clement, had been 
introduced before the time of Hippolytus, and was at that time so firmly estab- 
lished, that even the contradictory results arrived at by Hippolytus had no power 


to alter it” (Dict. of Chr. Biog. and Literat. p. 555). He accounts for Hip- 
polytus’ deviation ‘‘ from the order which he found acknowledged in his Church” 


by his having accepted as historically true the ordination of Clement by Peter, 
as related in the Epistle to James (spurious), and continues : We retain, then, the 
order of Irenzeus, accounting that of Hippolytus as an arbitrary transposition 


devised to get over a chronological difficulty.” 


120 Appendix. 


and the nearest to his own time of those Bishops of Rome who had 
actually been “ ordained by Peter.” Other early Latin writers, how- 
ever, have varied as to the order of the first Bishops, some placing 
Clement next to Peter, and the apparent discrepancy has been 
accounted for by the fact stated by Epiphanius, Rufinus, Venerable 
Bede, and others, that Linus, Clement, and Cletus had all three been 
ordained by St. Peter as his coadjutors (cum jure successionis), to 
act either as missionary Bishops, or in the administration of the 
Roman Church during his occasional absence, &c. (see Tillemont, 
Mem. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 164). Epiphanius also, who is followed by 
Baronius, Bollandus, Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, and others, 
considers that St. Clement, although first ordained by St. Peter, 
resigned the episcopal office in favour of Linus and Anencletus, and 
did not resume it until the death of the latter; whilst some have 
thought it more probable that ;he was ordained by St. Peter as 
a missionary bishop, unattached to any particular Church, and 
designed to assist the Apostles in their labours, by going about to 
preach the gospel and to establish and confirm the Churches in 
various places; and that, after the death of Anencletus, being 
required by the Christians at Rome, he “ was then,” as St. Epipha- 
nius says, “‘compelled to take the episcopate” (H@r. 27). 

It has been supposed by many, that when St. Paul came to Rome, 
he undertook there a part of St. Peter’s episcopal administration— 
exercising this office in regard to the Gentile converts, whilst St. 
Peter’s local charge was specially that of the Jewish converts. In 
confirmation of this it may be observed, says Dr. Hawarden, “ 1st, 
that Epiphanius says; ‘In Rome Peter and Paul were the first, 
both Apostles and Bishops’ (Her. 27). 2dly, that Eusebius says 
Alexander ‘derived in the fifth place @ succession from Peter and 
Paul’ (xewarny ἀπὸ Ilergou καὶ Παυλου κατάγων διαδοχην. Lib. iv. c. 1). 
3dly, That the Jewish and Gentile converts required to be treated 
at first in quite a different manner. 4thly, That whereas the ancients 
differ concerning the first Bishop of Rome after St. Peter—some 
affirming him to be Linus (as Irenzeus, Eusebius, Optatus, Epipha- 
nius, Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret) ; others to be Clement 
(as Ruffinus, and the Latins commonly, according to St. Jerome) ; 
both opinions may be reconciled if we suppose that, after the mar- 
tyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, the successors of St. Peter were 
Linus, Cletus (or Anencletus), whilst Clement succeeded St. Paul ; 
and that Clement after their decease, A.D. 91, was also chosen to 
succeed Cletus, and so joined both the converted Jews and con- 


Appendix. 121 


vetted Gentiles at Rome under one pastor. St. Epiphanius thinks 
it probable that, because St. Peter and St. Paul were often absent 
from Rome, they had, whilst yet living, their coadjutors there. So 
Linus might be St. Peter's coadjutor, as Clement, whom, according 
to Tertullian, St. Peter had ordained, perhaps for that reason, might 
be St. Paul’s.” Dr. Hawarden adds, that on this supposition, 
«“ there would only have been a division of St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s 
labours, not of their jurisdiction ;” and that “ it would neither injure 
the Pope’s supremacy, nor his being the successor of St. Peter only in 
the government of the whole Church, though in the government of 
the Roman diocese he were the successor of St. Peter and St. Paul.” 
(True Church, &c., ed. 1808, vol. ii. p. 99)- 

Other early writers use language confirmatory of this supposition. 
(1 do not,” wrote St. Ignatius, A.D. 107, « tke Peter and Paul, com- 
mand you” (Zfist. ad Kom. 0. 4). St. Irenzeus speaks of both 
Apostles as having transmitted the Episcopal office to Linus (iii. 3). 
St. Anatolius, A.D. 270, calls the Roman Bishops “‘ the successors of 
Peter and Paul” (Canon. Paschal. n. 10, Galland. iii. 548); and 
the Council of Arles, A.D. 314, calls Rome “the place za which 
(both) Apostles sit continually in judgment, and their blood without 
ceasing witnesses to the glory of God” (Epist. Synod. ad Sylvest. 
Labbe, i. p. 1426). ‘The Roman Church,” says Dollinger, “ was 
viewed as inheriting alike from St. Paul his prerogative of Apostle 
of the Gentiles, and from St. Peter his dignity as the foundation of 
the Church, and as possessing the power of the keys ” (First Age, 
&c., p. 300). It is, however, a certain and most remarkable fact, 
that whereas that Church was by ancient Fathers and Councils con- 
tinually denominated “ the See of Peter,” no single instance can be 
adduced of its ever being called the See of Paul. “These” (Peter 
and Paul), said Leo the Great, ‘are they who have advanced thee 
to this glory, . . - that, By THE Ser oF PETER made the head of the 
universe, thou mightest rule more widely by divine religion than by 
earthly empire” (Serm. 82, in Natal. App. Pet. et Paul). 

Mr. Maguire’s laboured attempt to prove that the early writers are 
discordant in their testimony, is not a whit more successful than are the 
efforts of infidels and rationalists to undermine the authority of vari- 
ous books of Scripture, by alleging instances of apparent discrepancy, 
and pointing to the chronological, scientific, and historical difficulties 
on which Strauss, Colenso, and others have insisted so vehemently. 
After the facts and evidence that I have adduced, it would be mere 
waste of time to enter on a more detailed examination of the nume- 


122 Appendix. 


rous misstatements contained in Mr. Maguire’s book. His historic 
doubts regarding St. Peter’s Roman Episcopacy can hardly be said 
to have any better or more rational foundation than the late Dr. 
Whateley’s “Historic Doubts relative to the Existence of Napoleon 
Bonaparte.” —I am, &c. 


DEVELOPMENT OF PAPAL POWER. 


Ir may be objected that few of the Papal Epistles, &c., from which 
passages are quoted-in this work, are of higher antiquity than the 
fourth and fifth centuries ; to which the reply is, that the series of 
genuine Decretal Letters that have been preserved commences only 
with Pope Srricius. TERTULLIAN, FIRMILIAN, and other hostile 
writers, however, speak of the “ peremptory edicts ” of earlier Popes, 
and of their claiming supreme authority as successors of St. Peter. 
We know also from Eusebius that Pope Victor (A.D. 190) threatened 
to excommunicate the whole of the Eastern Churches for their non- 
observance of Easter according to the Roman custom; from which 
extreme measure he was deterred chiefly by the pacific representa- 
tions of St. Irenzeus, who “ becomingly exhorted him,” says Eusebius, 
‘not to cut off whole Churches of God, who observed the tradition 
of an ancient custom” (Hist. Zecles. lib. v. c. 24). Pope Victor's 
authority to interfere in the affairs of the Eastern Churches, or even 
to excommunicate them, was not called in question ; and it is clear 
that his threat was not looked upon as an insolent assumption of 
power, or an idle waste of words, but that every effort was made, by 
argument, remonstrance, and entreaty, to avert its execution. 

To those who reflect that the Church itself was only gradually 
and by slow degrees to become great and powerful, developing itself 
as from “a grain of mustard-seed,” it can be no difficulty that Papal 
prerogatives were not referred to by St. Clement or St. Ignatius in 
such terms as were in use in the fifth and following centuries.~ Cer- 
tainly, kings and queens had not as yet become “ the nursing fathers 
and mothers of the Church,” nor “ bowed down before her with 
their faces to the earth, to lick up the dust of her feet” (Isa. xlix. 
23). ‘We must ever keep in view,” says HERGENROTHER, “ that 
the primacy was never as a ready-made system traced out for the 
constitution of the ancient Church, but was deposited in it like a 
fructifying germ, which developed with the life of the Church... . 
According to the will of Providence, the primacy was to enter on 
the domain of history ; hence it could not be circumscribed within 
exact and sharply-defined limits, but must be allowed such a freedom 
of movement and of development as would enable it to enforce in 


Appendix. 


every sphere its divine power, according to the various circumstances 
and special needs of different ages.” 

“Tt is true,” says Dr. NEWMAN, “ that St. Ignatius is silent in his 
Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s authority ; but if that authority 
was not, and could not. be, in active operation then, such silence is 
not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch 
about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about ‘the Roman people. 
St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While 
Apostles were on earth there was need neither of Bishop or Pope; 
their power was dormant, or exercised by Apostles. In course of 
time, first the power of the Bishop awoke, and then the power of 
the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did 
not at once break into portions ; yet separate localities might begin 
to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in conse- 
quence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel 
with Christians abroad ; they quarrelled at home amongst them- 
selves. St. Ignatius applied the fitting remedy. The Sacramentum 
Unitatis was acknowledged on all hands ; the mode of fulfilling and 
the means of securing it would vary with the occasion ; and the 
determination of its essence, its seat, and its laws would be a gradual 
consequence of a gradual necessity. . . . For St. Ignatius to speak 
of Popes, when it was a matter of Bishops, would have been like 
sending an army to arrest a housebreaker. .. . 

‘When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, 
first local. disturbances gave rise to Bishops, and next cecumenical 
disturbances gave rise to Popes... - It is not a greater difficulty 
that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes 
than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. 
And it is a less difficulty that the Papal Supremacy was not formally 
acknowledged in the second century than that there was no formal 
acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. 
No doctrine is defined until it is violated. And, in like manner, it 
was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine 
by the guidance of mere floating, and, as it were, endemic, tradition, 
while it was fresh and strong ; but in proportion as it languished, or 
was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back 
upon its special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of 
Peter. Moreover, an international bond and a common authority 
could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while 
persecutions lasted. If the Imperial power checked the development 
of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. 
The Creed, the Canon of Scripture, in like manner both remained 
undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, (Ecumenical Coun- 
cils—all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous 


124 Appendix. 


oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchi- 
cal power should rise when the Empire became Christian, so was it 
natural also that further developments of that power should take 
place when that Empire fell. Moveover, when the power of the 
Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be 
the necessary consequence. ...- As St. Paul had to plead, nay, to 
strive, for his Apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as 
Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him,—so Popes too have 
not therefore been ambitious, because they did not establish their 
authority without a struggle ” (Newman, On Development of Doct. 
pp. 165-168). 

The Rev. H. Mitman, D.D. (late Dean of St. Paul’s), writes as 
follows regarding ¢he necessity of a development of the Papal authority 
in the time of Pope Gregory the Great, and during the medizval 
period :— 

ΟἾΝΟΝ was the crisis in which th: Papacy must reawaken its 
obscured and suspended life. It was the only power which lay not 
entirely and absolutely prostrate before the disasters of the times—a 
power which had an inherent strength, and might resume its majesty. 
It was this power which was most imperatively required to preserve all 
which was to survive out of the crumbling wreck of Roman civilisation. 
To Western Christianity was absolutely necessary a centre, standing 
alone, strong in traditionary reverence, and in acknowledged claims 
to supremacy. Even the perfect organisation of the Christian hier- 
archy might in all human probability have fallen to pieces in per- 
petual conflict : it might have degenerated into a half secular feudal 
caste with hereditary benefices, more and more entirely subservient 
to the civil authority, a priesthood of each nation or each tribe, 
gradually sinking to the intellectual or religious levci of the nation 
or tribe. On the rise of a power, both controlling and conservative, 
hung, humanly speaking, the life and death of Christianity—of Chris- 
tianity as a permanent, ageressive, expansive, and to a certain extent, 
uniform system. ‘There must be a counterbalance to barbaric force, 
to the unavoidable anarchy of Teutonism, with its tribal, or at the 
utmost national independence, forming a host of small, conflicting, 
antagonistic kingdoms. . . - It is impossible to conceive what had 
been the confusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the Middle 
Ages, without the medizval Papacy; and of the medieval Papaey 
the real father is Gregory the Great” (πη). of Latin Christ. Ὁ. i. 
c. Vil. Vol. 11. pp. 100-102, ed. 1867). 


FINIS. 


PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO. 
EDINBURGH AND LONDON 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 


This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 


the Librarian in charge. 


DATE BORROWED 


DATE DUE 


DATE BORROWED 


DATE DUE 


Mr22’4/1 


iWi i 


C28 (946) ΜΙΟΟ 


